- ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS, 


i 7 ila Be bal AD ei ae 
F i dt ie ate 
Cy m), Pe PHE CASE OF 
ced 
ee 


Mr. DONALD McCRIMMON. 


A RULING ELDER OF nae Peper Enian, CHURCH, 
Wa WAS SUsPBADED, 
- From sealing ordinances, and ‘fom ihe exercise Of his of Pree, 
« BY. THE SESSION OF OTTERY’S CHURE H, 
FOR MARRYING THE SISTER OF HIS DECEASED WIDE; 
INCLUDING 
His trial before the Session, his aonee) from the decision of the Session td 


the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and the Assemb!y’s 
proceedings in relation to this case, 


TO WHICH IS ADDED 
A‘SPEECH, 
DELIVERED IN THE GENERAT, ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCII, 


. 


ON THE ist.OF JUNE. 1324, 


IN OPPOSITION TO MR. McCRIMMON’S APPEAL, 


AND 
IN DEFENCE OF THE DECISION OF THE SESSION; 


WiTH 


A brief concluding Address to the several Presbyterics. 


~. 


PPL ALLL LLL LLL LD LPL LLLP PLD 


By COLIN McIVER, V. D. Mf. 


yeaa 


FAVETTEVIELE: 
PRINTED FOR TAB AUTHOR AND rupnisMFn. 


1627. 


nts 
e wt Rid 
“seh 


The Ministers, Ruling-Elders 


me ae ; or THE 


ss PRESBYTERIAN CHURC 


aes . + _) IN tHE) 


_ UNITED STATES OF AM 


" APFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED, _ 


BY 


“eae | THEIR FELLOW-LABOURER 


SERVANT IN THE GOSPEL, 


‘a : ; ALgestvd Colle By 


Pamphlet Collection — 
Duke Divinity School 


PREFACE. 


a2 QI # 


‘THE following shéets are submitted to the serious con- 
gideration of the Ministers, Ruling-Elders, and Members 
of the Presbyterian Church, with my sincere desire and 
ardent prayer to the Father of all mercies, that, under 
his blessing, they may be made subservient to the promo- 
tion of his glory, and the advancement of the Redeemer’s, 
kingdom. They comprise the minutes of the Session of 
Ottery’s Church, in the case of Mr. Donald McCrmmon, 
including their decision, by which they suspended him from 
the sealing ordinances of God’s house, and from the exer- 
-cise of his office, as a Ruling-Elder, in consequence of his 
having taken to himself the sister of his deceased wife ;— 
extracts from the minutes of the Presbytery of Fayette- 
ville, and of the Synod of North-Carolina, containing the 
opinion of these judicatories, in relation to alliances which 
they consider as Divinely prohibited; Mr. McCrimmon’s 
appeal from the decision of Ottery’s church, to the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian. church ;—extracts 
from the Assembly’s minutes, in relation to this case; with 
a few remarks on one of these minutes; the rejected re- 
port of a Committee of the Assembly, on this subject ;— 
the Speech I delivered in the Assembly, on the Ist of 
June 1824, in opposition to the appeal here referred to, 
and in defence of the decision of the Session; -and a brief 
concluding address to the several Presbyteries. ‘The re- 
cent procedure of the General Assembly of our church, in 
reference to this case, has induced me to think, that the 
present publication cannot be unseasonable ; and what- 
ever may be thought of the sentiment herein advocated, 
T cannot but indulge the hope, that the publication itself 
will, under the blessing of God, subserve the cause of 
truth, either by establishing and confirming the minds of 
those who may seriously peruse it, in the belief of the sen- 
timent here attempted to be supported, if found to be 
‘agreeable to the Oracles of God; or, if the sentiment, on 
full, fair, and patient investigation, be found to be erro- 
: neous and unseriptural, by eliciting, from the pen of some 
ig NR Et iy 


Aree 


A ie LD ot y Powe © we & Be RO SE hb ar" 
ny : -" Beg cl iis ied : ee 

' wa ~S y 
Vv PREFACE. ; . 


_ abler and more accurately discerning writer, such argu- 
ments and: scriptural evidence, as may clearly point out 
the error; and shew all concerned, on which side of. thi 

“interesting question, the truth really lies. The object 
of the Speech herewith presented, when originally deli- 
vered. was, that it might have its due influence on ‘the - 
minds of those who composed the Assembly to whom it 
was addressed; and, all things duly considered, 1 cannot » 
think any apology now necessary for adding, that the ob- 
ject of publishing it, at this time, is. that, ifit contam any 
arguments In support of Divine trath, these arguments 
may exert all the influence to which they are entitled, on 
the minds of those who compose the several Presbyteries, 
connected with the General Assembly, in deliberating .on 
the important question, on which they have been required 
to send up their respective decisions to the next General 
Assembly. Were the judicial process relatmg to this 
case, which originated in the Session of Ottery’s church, 
in December 1823, and which terminated, (however 
strangely it may appear). without decision, in the General 
Assembly. in June, 1924, still pending, I should not feel 
myself at liberty to publish any thing on the subject. But 
as. from the moment the Assembly of 1824 referred the 
question tavolved in this case to a committee, with instruc- 
tioas to report thereon to the Assembly of 1825, the busi- 
ness ceased to partake of a judicial character, I humbly. 
conceive, that, fron that momeat, every restraint which + 
duty. and propriety had previously imposed, has been ef- 
fectually removed. I think it proper to make these re- 
marks, because the language inadvertently employed in 
the minute of the last General Assembly, on this subject, 
would, to those who are ignorant of the circumstances of 
this case, seem to convey the impression, that the case. 
still retains its judicial character; that the appeal to the 
Assembly was trom a decision of the Presbytery of Fay- 
etteville ;—and that the appellant. even while the last As- 
seinbly was sitting, was still waiting for relief. Now, all 
this is contrary to fact. The truth is, that the General 
Assembly of 1824, so far tried the appeal, as to hear the 
documents in the case rend,—to hear the arguments of the _ 
parties,—and to spend some time in deliberating there-. 


en;—but they ieit the matter undecided; and referred the» 


St eche 


PREFACE. | : Vv 


qiiestion involved in the case, to aselect committee, with 
directions to make report on the subject, to the Assem- 
bly of 1825. . From the date of this procedure, it is ob- 
vious to my mind, that the business no longer retained a 
judicial character; for, even if this committee had report- 
ed to the Assembly of 1825, that they considered the de- 
cision of the Session, as contrary to the Standards of our 
church, and to the word of God; and if that Assembly 
had adopted such an opinion, as their own deliberate judg- 
ment in the case, such an act, on the part of that Assem- 
bly, could not, in the least degree, have affected the deci- 
sion of the Session; because that Assembly, not being the 
one before whom the parties, in this case, had appeared, 
and pleaded their causes, could have no authority, to pass 
any judicial decision, in the case. Neither was this, as 
' stated in the minutes of the last Assembly, an appeal from 
a decision’ of the Presbytery of Fayetteville; for that 
Presbytery never had the appellant before them: he ap- 
pealed directly from the decision of the Session, to the 
General Assembly of 1824: nor yet did the appeliant ap- 
ply to any subsequent Assembly for relief; for the fact is, 
that, even without waiting to be informed of the result of 
his appeal, he withdrew (with what regard to order, regu- 
larity, and propriety, let others judge) from the govern- 
ment of the Presbytertan, and became a member of the 
Bapust church. These errors, in the minute of the last 
Assembly on this subject, | thought it necessary here to 
correct; because, although they evidently arose from an » 
oversight of the person who drew up the minute, I con- 

sidered them calculated to mislead. With Mr. MeCrim- 

mon, then, the Presbyterian church has no: further con- 

cern. The question, however, which has grown out of iis 

appeal, and which the Presbyteries are now called to de- 

cide, is certainly a question of deep interest; and one 

which, all men of reflection will allow. ought to be mature- 

ly weighed, in all its bearings, before it is decided. But 

for the act of the last General Assembly, which directed _ 
the Presbyteries to decide this question, the present pub- 

lication had not appeared. In deliberating on this ques- 

tion, the Presbyteries, in my humble opinion, would do 

well, previous to any decision thereon, to consider ‘the - 
force of the following very striking remarks, submitted by 


vi PREFACE. 


a committee of the General Assembly of 1803, to the As: 
sembly of 1864, on the subject of proposing alterations 
in the Confession of Faith, and Catechisms of our church. 
« The creed of every church,” said this judicious commit- 
tee, “as it ought to be derived immediately and who 
«from the word of God, must be considered as standit 
“on ground, considerably different, from that which sup- 
* ports the system of forms and regulations, by whieh wor- 
«ship shall be conducted, and government administered. 
« And, if it-be once rightly settled, can never be altered 
“with propriety, by any change of time or external cir- 
“ cumstances of the church. We cannot wish to see any 
“retrenchment made. It would give alarm to many of 
«our people, who might suspect that this was but the in- 
“ troduction to innovations of more importance. © And it is 
“ by no means to be considered as a vulgar or unfounded 
“prejudice, when alarm is excited, by alterations and in- 
“novations in the creed of achurch. There are many 
“reasons of the most weighty kind, that will dispose eve- 
“ry man of sound judgment and accurate observation, to 
«“pegard a spirit of change, in this particular, as an‘evil, 
“ pregnant with an host of mischiefs. It leads the Infidel 
“to say, and with apparent plausibility, that there can be 
“no truth clearly revealed in scripture ; because not only 
«its friends, of various sects, but of the same sect, pre- 
“tend to see truths in it at one time, which, at another, 
“they discover and declare to be falsehood. It-hurts the 
“minds of weak believers, by suggesting to them the 
“same thought. It destroys the confidence of the peop 

“ generally, in those who maintain a system which is lia 
«ble to constant fluctuations. It violates settled and use- 
« ful habits. It encourages those who are influenced by the 
“vanity of attempting to improve what wise men have ex- 
“ ecuted. or by the mere love of novelty, to give constant 
“disturbance to the church by their crude proposals of 
“amendment: and itis actually found to open the door 
“io lasting uneasiness, constant altercation, and finally to 
“the adoption of errors, a thousand-fold more dangerous 
+ aud hurtiul, than any that shall have been’corrected. In 
“a word, what was true when our Confession and Cate- 
“ chisms were formed, is true now. — We believe that this 
*iruia has been most admirably and accurately drawn 


PREPACE. “ Vil 


*into view, in these excellent performances. They have 
« become venerable for their age. Our church has flour- 
tished under their influence; and we can see no reason 
*to alter them. If there are a few things (and few they 
*must be, and of less importance, if they exist at all) 
« which, it might be shewn, could be expressed more cor- 
rectly, and in a manner less hable to objection, it is not 
«proper, with a view to obtain this, to expose ourselves 
“to the great inconveniencies and injuries that have been 
“specified.” That I may not, however. even by implica- 
tion, do injustice to the last General Assembly, I must here 
observe, that their act. or resolution, above referred to, 
and which calls forth this publication, does not actually 
recommend to the Presbyteries to rescind, or alter the sec- 
tion of our Confession of faith to which that resolution 
refers; nor does it even furnish evidence that a majority 
of those who composed that Assembly were in favour of 
such alteration. The resolution only, as if for the pur- 
= of setting all disputes on this subject for ever at rest, 

irects the Presbyteries “ to take this matter into serious 
* consideration, and send up, in writing, to the next General 
« Assembly, an answer to the question, whether the above-quo- 
«ted clause of our Confession shall be erased ?” 

With the Speech herewith presented, 1 thought it best, 
to give also, the minutes of the Session, and of the Gene- 
ral Assembly, and Mr. McCrimmon’s appeal; as they all 
appear to be necessarily connected ; as, indeed, I consid- 
ered the whole essential toa correct view of the subject; 
and as | thought the reader might find it convenient, oc- 
easionally to refer irom one of those papers to another — 
As, in the original preparation of the Speech here reier- 
red to, when designed only for the hearing of the Assem- 
bly to whom it was addressed, my object was, to preseut 
truth, in.as obvious and striking a light as was practica- 
ble, | freely availed myself of every thing which i found 
suited to my purpose, in the writings of authors of repu- 
tation; and, although it would not have been a very diili- 
cult task to have clothed their thoughts in different lan- 
guage; yet, wherever i found the ianguage of those au- 
thors more forcible than any I could myself empioy, I 
have not hesitated to give their sentiments, in their own 
words. The reader wiil perceive irom the reierences in 


st 


Vill PREPACE. 


the margin, that | am largely indebted to the ate 
able ‘Dre Livingston of New-Brunswiek, for seve al 
ble thoughts incorporated into my * Speech.’ e 
it now for the press, as it is designed Srenaaly fo 
perusal of the members of the several’ ie ethno 
have somewhat enlarged it, by incorporating into it's 
ral quotations from other authors, not contained in Ps” 
delivered. These, as well asa few additional remarks of 
my own, which occurred in transcribing, will be “found, 
in the present publication, enclosed within crotehets, ~ 
Should my worthy brother, Dr. Ely, who appeared be- 
fore the Assembly of 1824, as’ Mr. MeCrimmon’s advo- 
cate, or others who entertain’ his sentiments: on this sub- 
ject, be of the opinion that this publication is calculated. 
to mislead the Presbyteries, by giving a partial, or one- 
sided view of the great question presented for Presbyte- 
rial decision, | have only to observe that | am not con- 
scious of keeping back, or leaving unanswered, any arg 
ment of importance, on their side of the question, ‘lie 
has fallen under my notice; and that, if have, I trust 
this publication will appear sufficiently early to enable 
him or them to counteract, what he or they may consider 
its unfavourable tendency, by publishing his or their views’ 
on this subject; and thus, giving the Presbyteries both 
sides of the question. I hope no one will be so ungener- 
ous, as to infer from this remark, that J am vainly dispo- 
sed to attach undue importance to my own exertions on 
this subject; yet, | am free to confess, that I do attach 
very great importance to the subject herein discussed; 
and that [ am very anxious, that truth, on which side or 
ever of this question it may be found, may ultimately pi 
duce conviction on the minds of Hidses to whose decision, 
this great question is now confided. ; iy 
Teonelide this Preface, by submitting to the sedis 
consideration of my Rey erend Fathers and Brethren, the 
following judicious remarks, from the pen of the late Rev. 
Dr. Jonathan Edwards of New-Haven. “If” said’ this 
eminent Divine, “after weighing the arguments in favor of 
“the doctrine for which I plead, together with the objec- 
“tions and the answers to them, any should remain doubt- a 
«fuland undetermined concerning the question, itis cer- 
“tainly advisable to be on the safe side. A man commits iy 


ad 7 


PREFACE. ak 


*no crime in marrying some other person beside his wife’s 
_*sgister: but whether he will not commit a real crime, a 
“real violation of the Divine law, in marrying his wife’s 
“sister, is, at least, a very disputable point. Prudence, 
“therefore, plainly pomts out to him what part to act. 
_ « And, considering that we are required to abstain from 
«all appearance of evil, who can, with a good conscience, 
“willingly go as near the verge of evil as possible, and 
«yet not come within it? In another point of view, is it 
“expedient for a man to marry his wife’s sister? Bysuch 
“a marriage, he would deeply grieve and wound the most 
«of his Christian brethren. And, willingly to do this, is 
“to feel and to act very differently from the Apostle Paul, 
“who would not eat meat as long as the world should 
“stand, if thereby he should offend his Christian brethren. 
“In these times of revolution and innovation, some seem 
“ disposed to innovate in every thing, religious and moral, 
“as well as political;-to throw by old practices and old 
“opinions, without inquiring whether they be well or ill 
«founded; and to change, merely for the sake of change: 
“or rather, under the pretence of liberty, originality, and 
“jmprovement, to throw off all restraimt, in morals and 
“religion. ‘This, surely, cannot be reconciled with serip- 
“ture, or reason; with good sense, or with common pru- 
«dence. ‘Though some, among other changes and revo- 
«Jutions, are already prepared, and are endeavouring to 
“effect one with respect to the subject which has now 
«been under consideration; yet it is to be hoped, that 
“ our churches, and the Ministers of the Gospel, will not 
“proceed to any innovation in this case, without proper 
«deliberation; that they will carefully consult the voice 
« of reason, and consider how far the general practice of 
“marrying wives’ sisters will conduce to the preservation 
“of the purity of the morals of the people ;—how far it 
«will extend or limit those social connections between dif 
«ferent families which cement society, promote improve- 
«ment, friendship, and kind offices among the different 
“ constituent parts of the community; how far it will tend 
“to keep particular families by themselves, and uncon- 
“nected with their fellow-citizens; and how far this will 
“tend to promote narrowness, selfishness, mutual jealou- 
“sy, and enmity among fellow-citizens, and aristocracy 


x PREFACE. 


“and civil broils in the State. The lower classes’o: 
“kind are naturally jealous and envious toward #1 
“and affluent. But, will not the practice of h 
“ wives’ Sisters naturally tend to keep the grea the 
“ affluent unconnected with the rest? And Thais tha at, 
“especially in a Republican government, dike our ows? 
“ean be subservient to the public good, and whet er it 
«will not naturally tend to aristocracy, I leave « every one 
“to determine. But above all, it is to be hoped, that be- 
« fore any innovation is made in this matter, all concern- 
« ed, and especially our churches and ministers, will care- 
“fully consult the voice of Scripture, and the revealed 
«will of God. ‘To the law and to the testimony: if we 
«speak not according to this word, it is because there is 
“no light in us. And if there, it shall be found, that the 
“marriage in question, is, by plain implication, forbidden 
«in the same manner as several other marriages, as the 
“ marriage of a grand-son, the marriage of a mother’s bro- 
« ther’s wife, and the marriage of a husband’s rand-son, 
“which we all acknowledge to be forbidden, tho conse- 
“ quence is plain ;—that ministers, churches, and all indi- 
«vidual members of our churches, are bound. to unite 
«their influence against a growing evil.” 


ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS, 


Mr. DONALD McCRIMMON, 


EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE SESSION 


OF 


OTTERY’S CHURCH. 


Session met, at the call of their temporary Moderator. 
PRESENT, 

The Rev'd Colin McIver, who was appointed by the Presbytery of Fay- 
etteville to officiate as Moderator, (this church being, at present, without 
a Pastor) and Messrs: Elijah Ottery, Hezekiah Ottery, Alexander Ottery, 
Alexander Morison, Angus Morison, and Donald McCrimmon, Ruling- 
Elders. ’ 

Opened with prayer. 

A report, having prevailed in this neighbourhoed, touching the conduct 
of Mr. Donald McCrimmon, a member of this Session; which report, is 
considered and believed by many, to be deeply injurious to the interests of 
the Redeemer’s Kingdom, inasmuch as, in the opinion of not a few, it 
implicates the said Donald McCrimmon in the crime of incest; it was, 
therefore, 

Resolved, That Session institute a serious and solemn inquiry into the 
said report, and adopt such measures in relation thereto, as duty and dis- 
cipline may require. 

Mr. MecCrimmon, being present, and having freely consented, that Ses- 
sion should immediately proceed to try him, in relation to the prevailing 
report, and dispense with the customary formality of a citation, the fol- 
lowing charge, at the instance of Common Fame, was duly tabled against 
him; viz: bet 

“Common Fame roupLy procrarms. that Donald McCrimmon, a Ru- 
“ling-Elder of Ottery’s church, forgetful of his obligations as a Professed: 
“ Christian, and as an officer of the church of Christ, to maintain a life of 
“purity, is guilty of the crime of incest, in having, not more than five 
“weeks after the death of his wife, the late Hannah McCrimmon, taken to 
‘himself, Mary Dunlap, the sister of his said deceased wife, Hannah ;— 
“the said Mary being the daughter of the same father and of the same 
“mother with the said deceased Hannah; and that the said Donald Mc- 
“ Crimmon, has continued, and does still continue, to live with the said 
‘‘Mary Dunlap, in the same state of intimacy and co-habitation, as if she 
‘* were his lawful wife.” 


12) 


The above charge being read to the accused; and he, Ned on 

by the Moderator, to say whether he was guilty or not, made followi 

answer; viz: ; 
“The facts stated in the charge now read, viz: that, ‘tis e 


“ Mary Dunlap, the sister of the said Hannah, as my wedded wife and 
“that, ever since, I have continued, and do still continue to consider, and ; 
‘‘ treat, the said Mary, as my lawful wife, I do fully .and freely admit;— 

“ but, that in so doing, I am guilty of tle crime of incest, I do- absolutely 
n deny.” 

Session, on hearing the above answer, reminded Mr. McCrimmon of his 
having, at the time of his ordination, as Ruling-Elder, “ sincerely received 
“and adopted the Confession of Faith of this church, as containing that 
“system. of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures ;’—-on whieh: he ad- 
mitted this fact; but yet denied, that, in the act above charged against 
him, he had done any thing inconsistent with such reception and adoption 
of the Confession of Faith. 

Session, then, referred him to the last clause of the 4th section of the 
24th chapter of the Confession of Faith; where it is declared, that “the 

‘man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he 

‘may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred, nearer 
“in blood than of her own.” Mr. McCrimmon admitted that this 
clause apparently condemned the act above charged against him; but pro- 
fessed himself unable to percieve,.that the said clause was so supported 
by Scripture, as to prove him guilty of incest. 

Session by a reference to the several texts of scripture quoted in the 
Confession of Faith, in support of the above clause, laboured to convince 
Mr. McCrimmon that the said texts contained sufficient evidence of the 
incestuous nature of the connection, into which he had entered; and to 
impress him witha sense of the aggravated nature of his offence: and 
they exhorted him, to separate himself, henceforth, from the said Mary 
Dunlap ; assuring him, that, in their judgment, as expressed in the stand- 
ards of our church, his marriage with the said Mary ‘‘ can never be made 
“lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as they may live to- 
‘gether as man and wife :” but, notwithstanding all the efforts of Session 
to bring the said offending brother to a true sense of what they believed 
to be his duty, he positively declared, that it was his deliberate intention, to 
continue, to consider, to live with, and treat, the said Mary, as his lawful 
wife as long as he and she should live. Whereupon, 

Rosalba; That this Session do adjudge the said Donald McGrimmioisy to 
be guilty of the crime of zncest, in taking to himself, Mary Dunlap, the 
sister of his deceased wife; and in living with her, in the same state of 


intimacy and co-habitation, as if she were his lawful wife; and that the 


said Donald McCrimmon be, and he hereby is, henceforth, suspended 
from the exercise of his office, as a Ruling-Elder of this church; and al- 
so, from the sealing ordinances thereof, until he separate himself from the 
said Mary Dunlap: and give satisfactory evidence, of penitence and re- 
formation. 

‘The sentence of suspension, was then pronounced by the Moderator; 
which was foliowed by prayer to Almighty God, that it might please him 
to accompany this Rod of Discipline with his.blessing. 

Mr. McCrimmon gave notice to the Session, that it was his intention 


13 


to appeal from the above decision, to the next General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian church ;—that certain resolutions of the Presbytery of Fay- 
etteville, and of the Synod of North-Carolina, on the subject to which the. 
above decision of this Session relates, induces him to consider both these 
judicatories as having prejudgedhis case : and consequently to decline ap- 
pealing to either of them ; and to appeal directly to the General Assembly ; 
and that he would, in due season, lodge his appeal, and the reasons there- 
of, in writing, with the present officiating Moderator of this Session. 

Perfectly satisfied of the justice of the above decision, yet, desirous 
that Mr McCrimmon should enjoy every reasonable facility for having 
his appeal seasonably and fairly issued, the Session unanimously consent- 
ed, that the accused should pursue the course announced in the above no- 
tice of his intention, It was, therefore,, ; 

Ordered, That an authentic copy of all the proceedings of Session, in 
this case, be duly transmitted to the next General Assembly of the Presby- 
terian church. 

Resolved, That the present officiating Moderator of this Session, be, 
and he hereby is, requested, to defend, before the next General Assembly, 
the above decision of this Session; and to vindicate its conformity with 
the adopted standards of our church, and with the word of God. 

Adjourned, sine die. Concluded with prayer. 

Truly extracted from the minutes of Session, 
COLIN MciVER, Moderator Pro tem. 
: ELIJAH OTTERY, Clerk. 
eaeeS eee 


Extracts from the Minutes of the Presbytery of Fayetteville, and 
of the Synod of North-Carolina, containing the opinion of 
these judicatories, in relation to alliances which they consider 
as Divinely prohibited, referred to. in Mr. McCrimmon’s no- 
tice to the Session. 


Extract from the Minutes of the Presbytery of Fayetteville. 


Resolved, As the opinion of this Presbytery, which opinion is also fully 
expressed in the/public standards of our church, that a man who marries 
any of his former wife's kindred, nearer in blood than he may of bis own, 
and a woman who marries any of her former husband’s kindred, nearer in 
blood than she may of her own, are, according to the doctrines taught in 
the word of God, inadmissible to the privileges of the church. 

Truly extracted from the Minutes of Presbytery, 

; COLIN McIVER, Stated Clerk, 


Extract from the Minutes of the Synod of North-Carolina. 

_ Synod do judge, that the marriage of a man, with his deceased wife’s 
sister's daughter, 1s criminal, and highly offensive; and that all such mar- 
riages are truly detestable, and ought to be strenuously discountenanced ; 
and that the. persons contracting them, are, by no means ddinissible to the 
sealing ordinances of the church, 

Truly extracted from the Minutes of Synod, 
COLIN McIVER,, Stated Clerk, 


ae) Ase LEM 5 
a 4 


14 


The preceding extracts, from the Minutes of the § 
church, ‘of the Presbytery ‘of F ayetteville, and of the 
rolina, were all, in connection with Mr. McCrimmon’s 
to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian’ oe ‘in 


——— 


ee ape mie oe 
MR. McCRIMMON *S APPEAL. 


To the Reverend, the General Asseibly of the Presbyterian nchureh, in 
the United States of America. 

The APPEAL of Donald MolOFiui mos a Ruling-Elder of Ottery’s 
church, from a decision of the Session of the’said church, by which deci- 
sion, the said Donald McCrimmon, has been suspended from the exercise 
of his office, asa Ruling Elder. and from the sealing ordinances of the 
church, on a charge of 1 incest; to which charge, the said appellant did 
plead, at the time of trial, and still pleads, in this, ‘his Spper. peti crae 

BP 

Dear Brethren—In the exercise of a privilege guaranteed to me by. the 
Constitution of the Presbyterian church, I do hereby appeal to your Rey- 
erend Body, from the decision of the Session of Ottery’s church, by which 
decision, J have been suspended from the enjoyment of privileges I have 
long held dear, and from the exercise of an office, the duties of which, I 
have endeavoured to discharge, in the best manner of which” my i abil- 
ities would admit. 

In presenting this, my appeal, I am aware, pees in the 6th antpeher ‘of the 
3d section of the 7th chapter of the discipline of our church, it is decla- 
red, that ‘‘ appeals are generally to be carried, in regular gradation, from 
‘an inferior judicature, to the one immediately superior ;” but as this arti- 
cle does not require, that appeals be thus ¢nvariably carried up; and as 
repeated instances have occurred, of appeals having been tried by the As- 
sembly, in which this regulation has been dispensed with, 1 humbly appre- 
hend, that, if, in this instance, I can produce good and substantial reasons 
tor passing by the Presbytery of Fayetteville, and the Synod of North-Ca- 
rolina, the Assembly will not consider this, my appeal, as irregular; but 
will duly try it, and pass such decision thereon, as they shall deem best 
suited to promote the glory of God, and the good of his earthly Zion, — 

For appealing directly to the General Assembly, ftom a decision of a 
church Session, the following are my reasons; viz: Sy aS 

1. The situation in which T am placed, by the decision from which I 
now appeal, is a situation of a most delicate nature; and one, too, in 
which, to be kept long ina state of suspense, must be peculiarly painful. 
Should I strictly adhere to the regulation just referred to, the probability 
is, that I could not expect a final decision of my case, till May 1825; and 
this long state of suspense, would be to me more painful than I can well 
express, 

2. The Presbytery of Fayetteville have, on their records, a resolution, 
which, in my opinion, has pre-judged my case. This resolution is express- 
ed in the following words; viz: ‘'‘ Resolved; as the opinion of this Presby- 
“tery, which opinion is also fully expressed in the public standards of our 


4 


15 


“church, that.a man who marries any of his former wife’s kindred, nearer 
“in blood than he may of his own, and a woman who marries any of her 
“ former husband’s kindred, nearer in blood than she may of her own, are, 
“according to the doctrines taught in the word of God, inadmissible to 
“the privileges of the church.” 

3 The records of the Synod of North-Carolina contain the following 
judgment, in a case nearly similar; viz: ‘Synod do judge, that the mar- 
“riage of a man, with his deceased wife's sister’s daughter, is criminal, 
“ and highly offensive; and that all such marriages are truly detestable ; 
“and ought to be strenuously discountenanced ; and that the persons con- 
‘‘ tracting them, are, by no means admissible to the sealing ordinances of the 
* church.” 

Having now, as I humbly trust, obviated the difficulty, arising from my 
passing over two superior judicatories, in this my appeal, I have yet to ac- 
count for my personal absence; as the Book of Discipline declares, that 
“an appellant shall be considered as abandoning his appeal, if he does not 
“appear before the judicatory appealed to, on ‘the first or second day. of 
‘its meeting, next eusuing the date of his notice of appeal, exceptin cases 
“in which the appellant can make it appear, that he was prevented from 
* seasonably prosecuting his appeal, by the Providence of God.” That © 
my case is of this description, is a fact, of which the Assembly will be con- 
vinced, when I inform them, that I am a poor man; that 1 have a large 
family to support ; and that I cannot, in justice to myself and them, afford 
the expense of travelling from my present residence to the city of Phila- 
delphia ; and there, prosecuting this, my appeal. 

Having premised these statements and remarks, I will now proceed, di- 
rectly, to state the reasons of this, my appeal. 

I do, then, seriously and solemnly, appeal, from the decision of the Ses- 
sion of Ottery’s church, which accompanies this document, tor the follow- 
ing reasons; viz: 

First—Because, although the 4th section of the 24th chapter of the 
Confession of Faith does declare, that ‘‘ the man may not marry any of his 
“ wife’s kindred, nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman, 
“of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than she may of her own;” 
yet, the texts of Scripture, quoted in the margin, do, in my opinion, fail to 
support this proposition ; nor can I find any text, in all the Bible, that I 
can understand as proving this doctrine. 

Secondly,—-Because, in the list of kindred mentioned in the Book of 
Leviticus, the sister of a deceased wife, is not once mentioned, as a person 
whom it would be unlawful for a man to marry; although the 18th verse 
of the 18th chapter of that book, contains a prohibition in relation to a 
wife’s sister, in the wife's life-time ; which seems to imply, that, after the 
wife’s death, such a marriage might be lawful. 

Thirdly,—Because the Session of Oitery’s church, in making up their 
judgment, in my case, did not rest contented with considering and pro- 
nouncing the act wich they so severely condemned, as merely. a rash and 
inconsiderate act of indiscretion, or as a step unadvisedly and injudicious- 
ly taken; (all which I freely, admit; and for which, I would, without ap- 
peal, have willingly submitted to their censure, admonition, rebuke, or 
suspension :) but they have proceeded so far as to adjudge me to be euilty 
of the crime of ncest; and to determine it to be essential to my repent- 


16 


ance for this erime, that I separate myself from the ’ an whom I have 
chosen as my wife. ee 

Fourthly;— Because, after all the light I have bel 
this subject, I cannot but think, that a separation from 
consider and believe to be my wife, so far from atoning for < 
tion of which I bave been guilty in marrying her, would itself, be 
more offensive to God, than the act of our coming toge 

Fifihly,—Because the assertion of the said Session, t “seany marriag 
“with the said Mary can never be made lawful by any law of man, or 
‘consent of parties. so as we may live together, as man and wife,” al- 
though it is sanctioned by the language of the Confession of Faith, is yet, 
in my opinioa. totally unsupported by the Holy Scriptures. 

Sixthly, and Lasth y,— Because the decision of said Session is at ya- - 
riance, with the opinions expressed, at different times, in similar cases, by 
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, to which I now appeal. 
In the year 1797, in the case of a man who had married his former wife’ s 
brother’s daughter, and in the year 1802, in the case of aman who had 
married his former wife’s sister's daughter, the General Assembly have de- 
clared it to be their opinion,—“ that the marriage referred to, was not of 

“such a nature, asto render it necessary to exclude the parties from the 

‘‘ privileges of the church.” To the same purpose, in the year 1804, the 
General Assembly have said, “ that they cannot advise to annul such mar- 
“riages, or pronounce them in such a degree unlawful, as that the parties, 
“if otherwise worthy, should be debarred from the privileges of the 
‘church ;” and, in the year 1821, in the case of a person who, like myself, 
had married the sister of his deceased wife, the General Assembly have 
said, ‘that they are by no means prepared to decide, that such marriages, 
“as that in question, are so plainly prohibited in the scriptures, and so un- 
* doubtedly incestuous, as necessarily to infer the exclusion of those wha 
‘contract them, from church privileges.” With these repeated deélara- 
tions of former General Assemblies fully in view, it may be naturally sap- 
posed, that I do not,—that, indeed, I cannot anticipate a confirmation of 
the decision from which I now appeal : ;—so diametrically opposed to the 
sentiments of the collected wisdom of our church. True it is, lam not 
ignorant, that, in each of the cases here referred to, the Assembly ‘have 
expressed, in strong terms, their disapprobation-of the marriages in ques- 
tion: yet, much as they disapproved of them, they did not think proper’ 
to annul them. This is, to my mind, conclusive evidence, that 
not consider such marriages, as either a nullity, or an abomination in the 
sight of God. oes tk 

“These considerations, I acknowledge, afford me no small dticbuaape 
ment, to appeal to your Reverend Body, from the decision of the Session 
of Ottery’s church, above referred to ; and, if you should not find it é: 
dient to reverse the said decision (which, nevertheless, I hope you will 
but leave it, as former Assemblies have done, to the discretion of the’ ial 
sion, to dispose of it, according to their own views of duty, I yet cannot 
but confidently hope and _ believe, that I shall have the consolation of re- 
flecting, that the said Session, should they continue to enforce their deci- 
sion, will do so, unsupported by the advice or concurrence of the Gennes 
Assembly. Fil 

As the. Providence of God, in the manner. dlveady stiteds preven 
from personally presenting my appeal, I have prevailed on the Rev'd. Ezra 


17 


‘Stiles Ely, D. D. to appear before” you, as my Advocast: and I hope the 
Assembly will allow him to plead my cause, and also appoint such other 
counsel, to manage my defence, as they may think proper. 

And now, reposing perfect confidence, in the wisdom and piety of your 
Reverend Body, to decide the case in such a manner as you may judge 
best adapted to promote the glory of God, and the edification of his 
church, I freely commit my cause into your hands: and, praying, that 
tbe great Head of the church may preside in your deliberations, I sub- 
scribe myself; 

Dear Brethren, 
Yours unfeignedly. 
. DONALD -McCRIMMON. 


Bas an the Minutes of the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian Church, in relation to the case of Mr. Donald 


- MeCrimmon. 
has Ist, 1824, A. M. 

An appeal of Mr. Donald MeCatamios from a decision of the Session 
of Otttery’s church having been submitted to the Assembly by the Judi- 
cial committee, was taken up; and Dr. Ely was, agreeably to the request 
of the appellant, appointed to support the appeal. 

The documents on the subject were read; andiDr. Ely and Mr. McIver 
were heard at some length ; the former in support of the appeal, and the 
latter in defence of the decision of the Session. Adjourned till 4 o’clock, 
P.M. Concluded with prayer. See printed minutes, p. 207. 


FOUR O'CLOCK, P. M. 

The Assembly met, and was constituted by prayer. The minutes of 
the last Session were read. 

The unfinished business of the morning was resumed ; viz: the conside- 
ration of the appeal of Mr. McCrimmon. The parties were heard till 
they were’ satisfied, and the roll was called, agreeably to a constitutional 
rule on the subject. 

Dr. Leland, Mr. Robert Kennedy, and Mr. William L, Maccalla, were 
appointed a committee to prepare a minute proper to be adopted by the 
Assembly on the appeal. See printed minutes, p. 207. 


guNE 3p 1824, A. M. 

The committee appointed to prepare a minute on the appeal of Mr. Do- 
nald MeCrimmon from a decision of the Session of Ottery’s church, sus- 
pending him from the office of Ruling-Elder, and from the privileges of 
the church, reported, and. their report being read, was accepted. After 
some discussion, the further consideration of it, was postponed ; and the 
subject of the appeal was committed to Drs. Blatchford, Richards, Chester, 
Romeyn, McDowell, Miller, and Janeway, maturely to consider the sub- 
ject, and report on it to the’ nezt Assembly. Mr. McCrimmon was sus- 
pended on account of marrying the sister of his deceased wife. See 
printed minutes, p. 214. 

3 


18 


_ Remarks on the preceding Minute. 
The word “accepted,” here used, in reference to the report ¢ 
mittee, it will be readily perceived, does not imply, that the | 


adopted the sentiments it contained; but only, that they r eceived it, as a 
regular document, for the purpose of deliberating how it should be dispo- 
sed of. The concluding part of the minute shews, that it was ilti- 
mately adopted. Partly: on this account, and partly, perhaps, fror in- 


disposition to encumber the minutes, it was not placed on record. Hay 
ing, however, preserved a copy of it, and believing, that many of the read- 
ers of these pages, will, on perusal of it, unite with me in thinking, that it 
was a very correct and judicious report; and that the Assembly ought to 
have adopted it; itis here presented to my readers, as the. next article ; 
and, although it is not expressly said in the minute, that the report was 
rejected; yet, I have thought proper to entitle it “ The rejected report;” be- 
cause, after accepting it—not to adopt it, but to postpone the further con- 
sideration of it, was, in my judgment, virtually to reject it. It is worthy 
of further remark, that it was, “the subject of the appeal,’ and not the ap- 
peal itself, that was committed to the Ministers, whose names are. insert- 
ed in the preceding minute. It is, I think, obvious to the slightest obser- 
vation, that the appeal itself, could not, with propriety, be referred to them, 
unless they had been directed to report to that same Assembly ; but, inas- 
much as they were required to report, to the next Assembly, the business, 
if | have any correct understanding of its true nature, from the moment 
of the adoption of the preceding minute, ceased to. partake of a judicial 
character. 
<a Soom 


The rejected report of a Committee of the adeatig: on the. 
subject of Mr. McCrimmon’s appeal. 

The committee appointed to draft a minute on the appeal of Donald 
McCrimmon, who has been suspended from the office of Ruling-Elder, 
and from the sealing ordinances of religion, by the Session of Ottery’s 
church, report the following. 

Whereas the appellant acknowledges the fact of marrying the sister of 
his deceased wife, and confesses that he believes such marriages to be in- 
consistent with the Confession of Faith of this church, but not inconsist- 
ent with the word of God, and offers no objections against the. regularity 
of the proceedings of said Session; and whereas the Asssembly believe, 
it would be improper for them, to shrink from responsibility, or refuse to 
give an explicit decision, where it is regularly demanded; therefore, after 
hearing the parties until they declare themselves aneiafiows and after ma- 
turely considering the subject,—Resolved, that this Assembly do believe, 
that such marriages are inconsistent with the word of God, and the stand- — 
ards of the Presbyterian church; (See ch. 24, sec. 4) and they ~ affirm 
the decision of said Session, and it is hereby afirmed. 


Further extracts from the Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
church, in reference to Mr. McCrimmon’s appeal. 
May 24, 1825, A. M. 
The committee apppointed by the last Assembly on the subject involy- 
ed in the appeal of Donald McCrimmon, did not report. Resolved es 
they be continued.—See printed a bia D. 258. ' 


mAs 
ae 
. Fd 


19 
May 19, 1826, P.M. 

The committee appointed by a former Assembly on the subject involy- 
ed in the appeal of Donald McCrimmon, did not report. 

Resolved, That this Committee be discharged, and that this subject he 
committed to Dr. Neill, Dr Herron, Mr. Fisher, Dr. Chester, and Dr. Ax- - 
tell, with instructions that they report during the Sessions of the present 
Assembly. See printed minutes, p- 9 and 10. 


May 29, 1826, A. M. 

The committee on Mr. MeCrimiion® appeal from a decision of the 
Presbytery of Fayetteville, confirming bis suspension from the communion 
of the church, for having married his deceased wife’s sister, reported that, 
in their opinion, no relief can be given to the said McCrimmon without 
an alteration of the Confession of Faith, chap. xxiv, sec. 4, the last clause of 
which declares, that “the man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred 
“nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s 
“kindred nearer in blood than of her own;” but inasmuch as a diversity of 
opinion and practice obtains on this very important subject, Se committee 
beg leave tosubmit the following resolution, viz: 

Resolved, That the Presbyteries be and they hereby are ‘directed to take 
this matter into serious consideration, and send-up in writing to the next 
General Assembly, an answer to the question, whether the above quoted 
clause of our Confession shall be erased ? 

' The above report was-adopted.—See printed minutes, p. 22. 


(<> On this minute there are some remarks contained in the preface, to 
which the reader’s attention is particularly requested.—See pages iv. and v. 


SPEECH 


DELIVERED IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURSHR, 


ON THE ist OF JUNE 1824. 
IN OPPOSITION TO MR. McCRIMMON’S APPEAL, 


AND 
IN DEFENCE OF THE DECISION OF THE SESSION 
OF OTTERY’S CHURCH. 


Moderator—The subject on which, it now becomes. my province, 
through you, to address this Reverend General Assembly, never was, and 
Tam persuaded, never will be, to me, a subject productive of the smallest 
pleasure. I enter on its. discussion, with that reluctance, which every 
man feels, who engages in an unpleasant duty. So unpleasant, indeed, 


20 


sir, is this subject to me, that I could not be persuaded to embark in it, 
by any consideration, short of a deep conviction of dut y-i Sach . Si a 
tion, however, does, with me, outweigh all other considerations; — id all 
the objections to my engaging in this cause, which have been sugge 
my mind by my aversion to an unpleasant subject, are at ont e put | 
lence. I bring, then, sir, to the defence of the decision of the Se ession 0 
Ottery’s church, a firm conviction, that I now appear in the def “of 
truth and of purity ;—that the Session, in forming a decision which pro- 
motes a cause so sacred, deserve the countenance, the approbation, and - 
the warm and unanimous support of this General Assembly iand that, 
consequently, the appeal of Mr. Donald McCrimmon from so just a deci- 
sion, ought not to be sustained. ‘The minutes including the decision now 
appealed from, do, in my judgment, farnish this Assembly with abundant 
evidence, that the session, in all their deliberations om this subject, have 
acted with all that care and circumspection which the great importance of 
the case demanded; and that, whilst, on the one hand, they felt and exer- 
cised all that tenderness towards their offending brother, which the com- 
passionate spirit of the gospel called for; they kept steadily in view, on 
the other, their solemn accountability to the great head of the Church; 
and, in view of this accountability, were resolved, in this ease, as much. as 
in them lay, to be found faithful to their master. At the same time, sir, 
they were duly sensible, that they were, themselves, an imperfect, fallible 
body of men; and that, therefore, it was possible, their judgment might be 
erroneous, On this account, they readily consented to the present appeal ; : 
for, as they possessed the testimony of an approving conscience, they had 
nothing to fear from an investigation of their proceedings ; and, as their 
main object was, the promotion of Zion’s best interests, they felt no dis- 
position to throw any obstacles in the appellant's way; but were perfectly 
willing, that he should enjoy every facility, for having his appeal fairly and 
seasonably issued. I trust, however, I shall not find it difficult to prove, 
that, if, in the decision now appealed from, the session have fallen into an 
error, it is an error into which they have fallen, in excellent company ;— 
an error which has obtained the solemn sanction of a body of men, whose 
memory, multitudes of the faithful followers of Jesus, have long held 
dear:—even that same learned, judicious, and godly assembly of divines, 
who met at Westminster, in the'year of our Lord 1643, and there composed 
that excellent Confession of Faith, which we have, since, all adopted, as 
the Confession of our Faith. In consulting this excellent summary of 
scripture-doctrine, I find: sentiments, which, if admitted, will completely 
justify the decision of the Session. In the 4th section of the 24th chap- 
ter of the Confession of Faith, it is declared, that ‘‘ Marriage ought hot to 
“be within the degrees of consanguinity, or affinity forbidden in the word ; 
apr can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of 
‘man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man 
“and wife.” This general proposition, I presume, no member of this As- 
sembly will think of controverting ; yet, while this is admitted, some may 
be. disposed still to ask, Does our Confession of Faith absolutely pro-. 
nounce the act, of which the appellant, in this case, stands convicted, an 
incestuous act? I maintain, Moderator, that it does; and I doubt not, 
but this Assembly will concede the position, on a fair comparison, of the 
Whar thn, alleged offence, with the language of the Confession of Faith, 
hat, fant is “na appellant's offence ? From the testimony before you, even. 


21 


the testimony of his own confession, he stands convicted, of having taken 

- to bimself,—the sister of his deceased wife. And, on this act, what judg- 
mient does the Confession of Faith pronounce ? In the same section, to 
which I have already referred, it is further declared, that “the man may 
“not marry any of bis wife’s ‘kindred, nearer in blood than he may ef his 
“own; nor the woman, of her husband’s kindred, nearer in blood than of 
“ her own.” Will it be contended, sir, that the appellant might lawfully 
have married his ewn sister? If he might, then, I allow, the Confession of 
Faith does not condemn him; but, if he might not, then, neither, accord- 
ing to the rule just recited, might he marry his wife’s sister. Lapprehend, 
however, that no member of this Assembly will think of contending for 

the lawfulness of a man’s marriage with his own sister. If, then, am cor- 
rect in this apprehension, it must follow, as a matter which admits of no 
nit boa bast that the standards of our church pronounce that man guilty 
of incest, who takes to himself, the sister of his deceased wife. Of this 
trnth, the evidence I have furnished, will, I think, by every member of this 
Asseiubly, be considered as amply sufficient. All evidence, however, re- 
jating to this point, is, on the present occasion, quite unnecssary ; as the 
appellant himself distinctly admits, that what the Session has charged 
against him as an oifence, is explicitly condemned, as incestuous, in ‘the 
Coilession of Faith: my only reason, then, for offering any proof on this 
subject, was, that I felt extremely unwilling to take the advantage of an 
adinission, which, to others, the appeilaut might seem to make, without 
sufficient reflection: 

And if the decision of the Session be thus clearly supp@rted by the 
Confession of Faith; which, I think, no one will now deny,—I ask,—have 
they not a right, to calculate, with confidence, on the countenance, the 
approbation, and the support of this General. Assembly ? Is there any 
souad principle of reason, upon which such support can be denied them ? 
Caa you venture to sustain the appeal now before you, when you clearly 
perceive, that it is an appeal from a decision, which is firmly fortified by 
the Constitution of our church ? What, sir! Sustain an-appeal, from a de- 
cision, supported by that Confession of Faith, which every member of fhe 
Session,——which even the appellant himself—yea, which every member of 
this General Assembly, has, at his ordination, publicly and solemaly pro- 
fessed, to have “ sincerely received and adopted, as containing that sys- 
“tem of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures *’ Sustain an appeal from 
a decision, supported by that Confession of Faith, to the doctrmes con- 
tained in which, former General. Assemblies. have publicly and pg! 
declared their uniform adherence? Sustain an appeal, from a decision, 
supported by that Confession of Faith, a strict and undeviating ailccanee 
to the doctrines contained in which, former General Assemblies have 
strictly enjoined on the judicatories and churches-under their-care? Sur, I 
should find it extremely difficult, to reconcile such a supposition, with the 
confidence I repose in the good sense, orthodoxy, and fidelity, ef this Gene- 
ralAssembly. But, sir, thereisnoneed of apprehension on thissubject ; for, 
if sentiments found repeatedly expressed on your records, be correct, then 
am I warranted in saying, that this Assembly have no authority to make any 
decision, that shall contradict any part of the Constitution of our church; : 
and that, should they venture to do so, any decision thus made by them, 
must, of itself; be null and void.- The Assembly of 1804 acknowledged 
this position, when, in a letter addressed to the Rev. David Rice, of Kem 


22 
tucky, speaking of a measure, which they considered unconstiutional, they 
expressed themselves thus: ‘‘ But, were our opinion on this subject different 
“from what it is, we cannot lawfully and conscientiously depart from our 
‘present standards, till they be changed, in an orderly manner, by the con: 
“of a majority of the Presbyteries, which compose the body of the 
“ Assembly.” A similar testimony was also given, by the Assembly of 
1816, aaa expressed, if possible, in even more explicit and unequivocal 
terms. Their words were these: “ The articles of the Constitution, must 
" govern the Assembly themselves ; and cannot be altered or abrogated, but 
“in the manner pointed out in the Constitution itself.” 

Ifthese principles be just, sir, and I presume they will not be controver- 
ted, I might now, without any further investigation of the subject, justly 
claim from this Assembly, a decision, in favor of the appellees, and against 
the appellant. If the standards of our church, have pronounced the 
marriage now in question, an incestuous. marriage, I humbly appre- 
hend, that this General Assembly are bound to decide, that the word of 
God, the only infallible rule of faith. and practice, has pronounced, against 
such marriage, the same condemnatory sentence. This, sir, I think, I 
might insist on, without subjecting myself to the imputation, of being, any 
way, unreasonable, in my expectation; but, as this would fall short of sat- 
isfying the appellant; who, while he admits that the Confession of Faith 
justifies the decision of session, yet contends, that the texts of scripture quo- 
ted in the Confession do fail to support the proposition therein contained, 
and tells us, moreover, that he can find no text in all the Bible, from which, 
in his opinion, the doctrine for which I contend, can be proved ;——I am oll. 
ing to extend this investigation, even as far as he wishes it :—I am willing” 
to go, ‘‘to the law, and to the testimony,” and if, on such investigation, I 
shall be able to show, that “ agreeably to the rules of just interpretation, the 
‘marriage of a deceased wife’s sister, is actually forbidden” in God’s Ho- 
ly Word, then sir, [ cannot. doubt, but this Assembly will, not only con- 
demn the appeal; and confirm the decision appealed from; but also, pro- 
nounce the question now before us, as ‘‘ decided by an authority, which it 
“would be impious to contradict, and dangerous to disobey.”* 

Let us proceed, then, sir, in the fear of God, seriously to inquire, what 
testimony he has given us, on the subject now before us, in his Holy Word, 

Tn entering on this inquiry, it is of importance, that I distinetly announce 
what it is I propose to prove; and in what manner my proof is to be ex- 
hibited. I propose, then, to prove, that God, in his Holy Word, has actu- 
ally forbidden the marriage of a man, with the sister of his deceased wife. 
This, sir, [ propose to prove,——not by pointing to a text which literally ex- 
presses this prohibition ; but, by shewing, that, “ agreeably to the rules of 
"just interpretation,” this prohibition is contained in the Oracles of God. 
Ifa person who wishes ‘to have a:correct conscience on this subject,” 
should “ take his Bible, and search diligently to find the words, ‘ Thou shalt 
not marry thy wife’s sister ;’””—I grant you, that he will search in vain: if 
he should also critically search, to find the words, ‘‘ Thou shalt not marry 
“thine own daughter ;”—he will be equally disappointed. “ But will he, 
‘then, gravely lay aside his Bible,” and take it for granted, “that these in- 
‘stances of marriage are lawful, because he does not find them forbid- 
“den, expressly, inso many words? God forbid!” With equal truth, = 


* Livingston. 


23 


good sense, might he conclude,—‘ that it is lawful to steal a woman or 
“child, and sell it, because not expressly forbidden ; although it is” explicit- 
ly “declared, that whosoever stealeth a man, and selleth him, shall surely be 
put to death.”* From so gross a mistake as this, even common sense will 
save any person of ordinary understanding or reflection. But, in what 
part of the Holy Scriptures, shall we commence our search ! That there 
is such an offence against God, as that which we denominate incest —that 
this offence is an abomination in the sight of God ;-——and, that, in his Holy 
Word, he has given us all the information that is necessary to enable us to , 
ascertain, wherein that offence consists,—are positions, which, I presume, 
no one who is familiar with his Bible, will hesitate to admit. But, in what 
part of the inspired volume, shall we find this necessary information ? Shall 
we find it in the Old Testament, or in the New, or in both ? If we lookinto . 
the New Testament, for information, respecting “ the degrees of consan- 
“‘guinity, or affinity, within which, a man or woman may, or may not mar- 
“ry,” we find, in this part of the scriptures, “not one word’ on the sub- 
ject, “except John’s reproof of Herod, for having his brother Philip’s 
“wife; and Paul’s reproof of the Corinthian church, for communing with 
“9 man that had his father’s wife,”, which he considered as ‘a notorious 
“scandal. And why do we find no marriage-table, or scale, in the New 
“Testament ? For the best of reasons,’ sir :—‘‘ Jehovah had already giv- 
“‘en one, in the Old Testament,—never yet repealed,—fit, in its nature,—. 
“sufficiently liberal for the convenience of the human family,—and de- 
“signed to be permanent. This table, or law of God, is found on record, 
“in the 18th chapter of the buok of Leviticus.” t In this chapter, I appre- 
hend, sir, we are to find the true solution of the question now before us; 
“ for there is no other passage in the Bible,—--not asingle paragraph to be 
“found in the Old or New Testament, where the prohibited degrees are 
‘enumerated, excepting in this 18th chapter of Leviticus, and a few verses 
“in the 20th chapter, where some of the precepts are repeated.”{ The 
6th verse of the 18th chapter, contains a general law on the subject now 
before us, wherein all persons are forbidden to marry any that is ‘‘ near of 
“kin” to them. Inthe next 11 verses, commencing with the 7th and end- 
ing with the 17th, the limitations of this law are particularly specified, 

pointing out, in 15 distinct. cases, the degrees of kindred, within which, 
marriages are prohibited, under this general law. ‘That this general law, 
with its various limitations, can relate to nothing else than to prohibited 
marriages, I think, must evidently appear,——“ from the express'designation 
‘‘of the crime,—the definition of the subjects of the Jaw,—and the min- 
‘ute enumeration of the degrees of kindred, which constitutes the basis 
‘of the prohibitions. Any attempt to prove, or illustrate this, would be su- 
‘“‘perfluous, The object of the law, and the meaning of the divine law- 
* giver, cannot be mistaken.’ I conceive it ‘ impossible,” sir, “ to hesitate 
‘“‘in determining, that this is a law, which condemns, what is called iN- 
“cesT ;” and “that its immediate scope and design is, to draw the line of 
‘prohibitions ; and ascertain, with precision, the degree of kindred, with- 
“in which, God forbids the consummation of marriage,”’§ 

Before I consider the particular prohibition, which is the immediate ob- 


ff 


* From an anonymous tract. 
+ Report of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgie. 
} Livingston. ‘4 Thid, 


24 


ject of our saab bic: I beg leave, sir, to state a few pl : rinciples, 
which I believe to be essential to the true interpretation of thi Jaw ; j ‘and 
which, ] hope, this Assembly, will readily admit. At will, then, 7 
be allowed a 

ist. That “the term, near of kin, specifies that degree of relatio 

“approximates too closely, to tender a marriage legitimate, betwee 

‘sons thus related;” and that “ the ncarness of kindred is the essei i 
“principle of the law against incest.”* 

2ndly. That the prohibitory phrase, which is familiar‘to all the Grenier 
of this Assembly, and which, for an obvious reason, r forbear to repeat, 
“is used to signify marriage ;” and that “ the meaning” of it“ cannot be 
mistaken,’’T 

3dly, That “the term, wife, in this law: ” invariably “ signifies, « wide. 3 
This position, [ think, cannot well be controverted ; for, ** were the hus- 
“ band still alive, it would be adultery, which is not’ the crime intended, or 
“ designated, in this law.”’f 

dthly. That. ‘in the enumeration of the degrees ef relation, the sour-: 
“ees, by consanguinity and affinity, are indiscriminately blended ;”=-that 
“the relations of the husband, and the relations of the wife, in consequence 
Be the union produced by marriage, are considered as equally near to 
“ a and that ‘‘no distinction is made, in the direct or lateral line, be- 

‘ tween those who are related by blood and by marriage.”§ 

Sthly. “'That, wherever a degree of kindred is named and prohibited, all 
‘the relations, either in consanguinity or affinity, which are in the same 
be “ degree, and especially such as are nearer, than that which is mentioned, 

‘are necessarily included, and equally forbidden.”’|| 
-EHaly: That ‘the same prohibition w hich binds a man, is equally bite: 
‘ing upon a woman: and 

7th and lastly. That ‘‘ every relation of the same degree, when reversed, 

“must be understood to be as much included in the precept, as if it had 

“ been specifically mentioned:” for, “to have repeated all these, vice versa, 

“would have unnecessarily multiplied the words of the law, without ren- 
‘dering them more explicit, or intelligible.” {{ 

These principles being premised, I am now ready, to consider the partic- 
ular prohibition, which is the immediate object of our present inqui 
Where, then, Moderator, shall we find the evidence, that God has forbid- 
den a man, to marry the sister of his deceased wife ? It is found, sir, in the’ 
16th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus; where aman is expressly for- 
bidden, to marry his “ Brother's Wife.” “Ts remove every temptation, 
‘and silence all prevarication upon this article, the same precept is,” in 
tite 21st verse of the 20th chapter, plainly “ repeated : “If a man shall take - 

‘his brother's wife itis anunclean thing.’’’\\l] ‘This, sir, agreeabl. to the: 
principies already stated, is, in my apprehension, tantamount to a ara- 
tion, that, “Jf aman shall take his deceased wife's sister, at 1s an ances 
Those who controvert the doctrine for which I contend, may, pethaps, 1 
disposed to smile at this suggestion: yet, sir, if I ask those very persons, 
whether a man may lawfully | marry his own daughter, they will not hesitate 
in saying, that he may not: if I then ask them, how they prove this, from 
scripture, they will confidently refer me to the 7th verse of the 18th chapter 
of Leviticus; where a man is forbidden to marryhis own mother. This ig: 


+ 


*Livingston. {Ibid. t Ibid. § Ibid. gTbid. ‘Ibid. tt Ibid. i Ibid. 


25 


the oniy text, from which they can preve it. _They will tell me, that a 
‘daughter is as nearly related to her father, asa son is to his mother ;—that, 
therefore, if God has forbidden a man to marry his mother, he has, by the 
very same law, forbidden a woman to marry her father ; ane. that, ifhe has 
said, that a woman may not marry her father, he has also, necessarily said, 
that a man tay not marry bis daughter. This reasoning, sir, I confess, I 
cannot resist; and therefore, precisely, 1 in the same manner, prove, from 
‘scripture, the unlawfulness of a man’s Ss marriage, with his wife’s sister: I 
Say, no one will deny, that a sister is as nearly related to a sister, as a bro- 
ther is to a brother. If, then, God has forbidden a man to marry his bro- 
ther’s wife, he has, by the very same law, forbidden a woman to marry her . 
sister’s husband ; and if he has said, that a woman may not marry her sis- 
ter’s husband, he has also necessarily said, that @ man may not marry his 
wife’s sister. Willit be said, sir, “in objection to this demonstration, that 
“the relationship of a sister’s husband, is further off, and more remote, 
‘than the relation of a daughter to a father?” This sir, is worse than tri- 
fling: “admitting it is further off;—the same Divine Being forbids both: 
One as truly as “the other, and both on the same principle.” And here, 
sir, I cannot help observing,—that “ those who speculate upon the style 
“in which the Jaw of marriage is” expressed, “and complain that it is not 
“‘suficiently explicit, would do well to remember, that the scriptures 
* were not written, in the ‘words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the 
“ Holy Ghost teacheth, or taught. It is dangerous, therefore, to indulge 
“this complaint. ‘To impeach the wisdom of the Divine Spirit, carries 
‘“‘ something in it impious and shocking. All should remember, that Mo- 
‘ses, in the 18th chapter of Leviticus, laid down what was law, respect- 
“ing marriage, He had not done this before; nor was he here treating 
“ of the breaches of this law. But, after stating the ground work of the 
“law, he identified relations simply; which relations, as such, might not in- 
‘‘termarry. .A son might not intermarry with his mother, whether his fa- 
“ther was living or not. A nephew might not intermarry with his aunt, 
" or uncle’s wife, whether his uncle was living or not; and so, of all the 
“rest. Relations, stmply.as such, are forbidden. Of course there was no 
need of calling a mother, a father’ s widow,——an aunt, an uncle’s widow, 
‘—or, a brother’ s wife, a brother’s widow.”* 
[‘‘ It is presumed, that it is not possible to conceive of a reason against 
‘ marrying a brother's wife, which will not apply, in its full force, against 
bi marrying a wife's sister. The prohibition, in the one case must equally 
‘apply in the other, Things which are alike, in themselves, are alike 
‘virtuous or vicious: arguments, therefore, from analogy, or similarity, 
‘ dre no less conclusive and satisfying, by the common consent of mankind, 
“than such as have their foundation, in express commands and probibi- 
“tions. The ill effects of marrying a wife’ $ sister. are as great as those of 
“ marrying a brother's wife ; and the reasons of the prohibition are stron- 
_‘' ger, in some respects, than for the prohibition of the marriage of a bro- 
_“ther’s wife. There is more danger of a man’s practising undue famili- 
_“arities, with a wife’s sister, than with a brother’s wife. The temptations 
“are greater; and the opportunities more numerous. Brothers’ wives 
are commonly fixed in different, and often in distant families. They are 
‘married women, or widows. But, a wife’s sister, is often brought intq 


* From an anonymous tract. 


“ 26 ™ 
“the same family, in a single state, in_ail the vigor and beni: ‘youth, 
‘“The temptations to incontinency are greater, and the opportunities far 
“more numerous, in this ease, than in that of a brother’s wife. 
“man marries a wife’s sister. he makes no new relations, be forms no | 
“ friendships, does notbing to enlarge his knowledge of mankind, or to ene 
i: ie ot 8 the circle of love and kind offices. But the whole tendency of it 
s, to prevent the diffusion of wealth and benevolent affection ; to increase 
oe ‘selfish principle, and the undue influence ot a combination of rela- 
“tives; and, in this way, to disserve the general happiness of society, he} 
1 trust, sir, have now clearly shown, that the appellant’s first reason for 
appealing from the decision of Session, is not sufficient to justify this Gen- 
eral Asseiubly, in sustaining his appeal. 1 must now consider his second 
reason; which is, that, ‘in the list of kindred, mentioned in the book of 
“ Leviticus, the sister of a deceased wife, is not once mentioned, as a per= 
“son whom it would be unlawful for a man to marry; although the 18th 
“verse of the 18th chapter of that book, contains a prohibition, i in relation 
“to a wile’s sister, in the wife's life time ; which seems to imply, that a er 
‘ the wife's death, such a marriage might be lawfal.” ‘The first part of this. 
reason, sir, | think | have already sufficiently answered. [In addition, 
however, to what [ have already said. in relation to a literal, or express 
prohibition, it may here be proper, simply to remark, that, if what the ap- 
pellant here contends for ‘“ prove any thing, it proves too mueb, and so 
proves nothing; for it implies,—that it is lawful for a woman to marry 
“her grandson, though it is expressly forbidden that a man marry his 
“ erand-daughter ; and that it is lawful for a man to marry his mother’s 
‘brother's wife, though he may not marry his father’s brother’s wife ;—that 
“itis lawful for a woman to marry her father’s sister’ s, or mother’s sister’s’ 
“busband, though it is not lawful for a man to marry his father’s brother’s 
“wife ;—that it is lawful for a woman to marry her husband’s grandson, 
though not fer a man to marry his wife’s grand-daughter.” ‘This, it will 
be recollected, 1 have already sufficiently exposed ;] yet, the last part of 
the appellant’s 2d reason, appears to claim a few remarks. The question, 
here, sir, is, what is meant by the words, ‘‘@ wife to her sister,” in the 18th 
verse? This question, sir, the translators of the bible have satisfactorily 
_ answered, in the marginal reading, where they explain it to mean, “ one~ 
-wife to another.” [‘'The same Hebrew phrase, Isha el achotha, here trans- 
“lated, a wife to her sister, is found, in eight other instances only, in the 
“whole Hebrew Bible, in none of which it is applied to a natural sister ; 
‘but, in every one of them, itis applied to inanimate substances, — Thus, 
“it is used twice, in Exodus xxvi. 3. ‘The five curtains shall be coupled 
“together one to another, and other five curtains, shall be coupled, one to 
*‘another.’ The literal translation of the Hebrew is this. ‘The five cur- 
“tains shall be coupled, @ woman to her~ sister, and five curtains shall be 
“coupled. a woman to her sister. The same phrase occurs-in the 5th 
“verse of the same chapter. ‘That the loops may take hold, one of ano- 
“ther. The literal translation of the Hebrew is, ‘ The loops receiving a 
“ woman to her sister. Again, in the 6th verse, ‘ And couple the curtains- 
“together :’ In Hebrew “And couple the curtains, @ woman to her sister.* 
** So verse 17th, ‘ T'wo tenons shall there be in one board, set in order, one 
‘against another :’ in the Hebrew,—‘ set in order a woman to her sister.” 


* Trumbuk,. + Edwards. 


27 


-“ Ezekiel, 9. ‘Their wings were joined one to another :’ In the Hebrew, 
“< Their wings were joined, a@ woman to her sister.’ Verse 23d of the 
“ saie chapter,—' And under the firmament were their wings straight, the 
“one toward another :’ In the Hebrew,—' were straight, a woman to her 
“ sister.’ Chapter iii 13, ‘I beard also the noise of the wings of tie 
“living creatures, that touched one another:’ In the Hebrew,— that 
“touched, a woman to her sister.’ On the authority of Buxtorf's concor- 
“dance to the Hebrew Bible, I assert, that these eight are the only in- 
“stances of the use of this phrase in the whole Hebrew Bible, besides 
“ Leviticus xviii, 18. And, since, in all these, it is applied to inanimate 
“substances, which cannot, in the literal sense, be sisters to each other, I 
“submit it to. my learned auditors, how far this is an argument, that, in our 
*‘ text too, it does not mean a natural sister, If it shall be determined, 
"that, in our text, it does not mean a natural sister, the sense of the phrase 
“will be the same which it bears in all other places; and the translation 
“will also be the same ;’* namely, that which the translators of the Bible 
have given us inthe margin] It is clear, then, sir, that, in this 18th 
verse, there is not a word about incest: it is a plain prohibition of polyg- 
amy; and the reason of this prohibition is, that ‘‘ Polygamy is a source of 
“ domestic veration ; and destructive of all the interesting ends of marriage, 
“Ifthe natural sister of the wite were here intended, it could not, even 
“then, be considered as an implicit permission to marry such sister after 
* the death of the wife; for this” would contradict what “ was already ab- 
“solutely forbidden in the 16th verse ;” and besides, it is to be observed, 
that “the whole cause of the prohibition, in the 18th verse, refers to the 
“‘vexation of the wife :—but why should her sister be specified as the most 
“vexatious partner? The pretended argument to recommend the marry- 
“ing of a deceased wife’s sister, would” surely “ prove,” sir, ‘that, of all 
“ other women, she would be the least exceptionable, and the most desira- 
“ble associate of a living sister. But, that the natural sister cannot be 
“meant, is evident; because the law would then imply that a man might 
“ inarry any other, in the lifetime of his wife, provided she_was not her sis- 
“ter ; which would be implicitly to license polygamy, instead of forbidding 
‘it :—an inference, which no modest commentator would dare to counte- 
“nance.”} (= By this I would not be understood to mean, that my good 
brother Dr. Ely, is not.a modest commentator, although, as the advocate 
of the appellant, in this case, he has contended. that, under the Old Tes- 
tament dispensation, polygamy was lawful. I cannot but think, that it was 
through an oversight, that he quoted, in support of such an opinion, both 
in his defence ofthe appellant, before this Assembly, and in his published 
synopsis of Didactic Theology, the 15th, 16th and 17th verses of the 21st 
chap of Deuteronomy, where it is directed, that, “ [fa man have two wives, 
‘‘one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children both 
"the beloved and the hated ; andif the first born son be hers that was hae 
“ted, then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he 
* hath, that he may not.make the son of the beloved first-born before the 
* son of the hated, which is, indeed, the first-born ; but he shall acknowl- 
‘edge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double por- 
“tion of all that ke hath: for he is the beginning of his strength, the right 
‘of the first born, is his,” This passage, does indeed, recognize the ez- 


* Edwards, + Livingston, — 


26 


astence but by no means justifies the practice of polygamy. That it was 
then, as unlawful as it is now, is, to my mind, very clear, from the evidence 
furnished by the Holy Scriptures on the subject, and although the patri- 
archs indulged in it, their history, in my opinion, plainly — s, that, 
by this very offence, they often drew down upon themselves, the divine 


displeasure, * 
[‘‘ It is plain, by the prophet Malachi, by our Lord, and by the - . 
“ Paul, that polygamy was unlawful under the Old Testament. Betis. 
“Sage in Malachi to which I refer, is chapter i ii. 13—15, ‘He regarde 
“not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 
" Yet, ye say, Wherefore ? Because the Lord hath been witness between 
“thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherous- 
“ly. Yet she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did 
“he not make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore 
“one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your 
“ spirit, and let none ‘deal treacherously against the wife of his veuth.’ In 
“this passage all are forbidden to deal treacherously with the wives of 
En * their youth. And what was meant by dealing treacherously with them, 
‘is explained in these words, ‘ And did he not make one” i. e. one wo- 
‘“‘man for one man. ‘ Yet he had the residue of the Spirit,’ and was abun- 
“dantly able to have created more women for one man, if it had been law- 
“ful, and best for him to have more. And ‘ wherefore’ did he make but 
one’ woman ? ‘ That he might seek a godly seed :’ i. e. because monog- 
“amy, or the having but one wife, is subservient to godliness, and polyg- 
“amy is hurtful to it. ‘Thus does this prophet clearly decide against the 
“lawfulness of polygamy, under the Old Testament. The testimony of 
“of our Saviour, on this head, is not less express and pertinent: it is 
“in Matt. xix.4—6 ‘ Have you not read, that he which made them at 
“the beginning, made them male and female ? And said, For this cause 
‘shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and 
“they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore, they are no more twain, but 
“one flesh.’ They twain,—not they three or four, were to be one flesh ; 
‘and a man was to leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, —not 
“to his wives. And this was the design and institution of God, from the 
“ beginning,—under the Old Testament, as well the New. The Apostle 
“Paul also quotes the same words. from Gen. ii. 24, and continues them, 
‘in the same sense, as you may seein Eph. v. 31. ‘ For this cause shall a 
“man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and 
“they two shall be one flesh.’ ‘Thus clearly, it appears, that polygamy 
‘*was unlawful, even under the Old Testament ; and consequently, that. 
‘there is no license for it given in Leviticus xvili. 18; as there is, if that 
‘text be understood to refer to a natural sister ’{] I conclude, then, sir, 
that all inferences, or arguments, in favor of marrying the sister, after 
the death of the wife, deduced from this verse, are frivolous and ridiculous, 


* Although it is not a matter of much consequence, I choose here to state a fact, in 
relation to the remarks, to which this note is appended, the commencement of which is 
distinguished by this mark (> Dr. Ely had made the first speech; and | proceeded to 
deliver mine, as previously written, until I came to the above quotation from Dr. Liy- 
ingston’s book, respecting polygamy ; when | thought proper to make some reference to 
Dr. Ely’s speech, and, consequently, added extempore, what is here given, as nearly in 
the words which { uttered at the time, as my memory would enable me to commit to 
writing, when I returned from the Assembly to my lodgings in the evening 

+ Edwards. 


29 4 


Before I proceed to notice the appellant’s next*reason for appealing, I 
must say a few words, in relation to a popular plea in favor of the mar- 
_tiage, I now oppose, founded on the 5th and 10th verses inclusive, of the 
25th chapter, of the book of Deuteronomy; where, it is alledged, that 
God himself expressly enjoined the marriage of a sister-in-law, in cases 
Where a brother died without male issue. ‘ True.” Moderator ; “he did: 
“and, when an anti-christian age comes on, and the Jewish polity returns, 
“and it becomes necessary to ascertain, by keeping a distinct register of 
““ Jewish families, and tribes, and property, the lineage and birth of the true 
“Jesus, and the right of property at the year of Jubilee ;”—then, sir, I 
“will agree to, and” even “commend, the religious and state policy of 
“such a marriage ;—but not till then.”* [If it be urged, that the injunc- 
tion here referred to “is a repeal of the general law under consideration, 
“ to this, it is only necessary to reply, that an exception to a genera! law, 
“ Of a proviso, in a particular case, is never considered as a repeal of the 
“law, but a confirmation of it in all other cases in which there is no ex- 
“ception, nor proviso. See Numbers xxvii. 8. ‘And thou shalt speak 
“unto the children of Israel, saying, Ifa man die, and have no son, then 
“ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.’ This is the 
“case with respect to all general laws. Did a proviso or a particular ex- 
““Ception, in some case, under a general law, repeal it, almost all laws 
“would be repealed: for there are few, ifany, without a proviso, or some 
“particular exception to the general law.”{ But as already hinted, “as 
“ the necessity of keeping up every family distinct, which was the reason 
“of the exception to the law. against marrying a brother’s wife, doés not 
"now exist among us, Gentiles; so the exception itself does no longer ex- 
*‘ist; and the general law is left to operate in its utmost extent.’”’{] 

The pretence. that the law in Leviticus is not moral, but ceremonial, I 
consider scarcely worth attention: for, where, sir, will such a principle 
lead us ?—But once admit this principle, sir, and then, it will follow, not 
only, that “a Christian may. marry his sister-in-law,” but that “he may’ 
even “ marry his nearest relatives by consanguinity ;” for on this sapposi- 
tion, “ there is no law in the book of God, to bind him to the contrary. If 
“ the precept respecting one relation be ceremonial, then, all the precepts 
“are ceremonial :—a discrimination is impossible. ‘The Jews, then, were 
“ restrained from committing abominable crimes ; but Christians may per- 
“ petrate those very sins, with impunity.” Surely, sir, no man of refiec- 
tion will urge such a plea, “and look at the unavoidable conclusions, 
‘‘ without blushing at’’ his ‘‘ prejudice, and” his ‘ rashness "§ [“ But what 
“absolutely determines the point, that the prohibitions in Leviticus xviil., 
“are moral, and not ceremonial, are the verses which immediately follow 
‘‘ these prohibitions, particularly the 24th and 25th.‘ Defile not yourselves 
‘“‘in any of these things; for, in all these, the nations are defiled which I 
“cast out before you. And the land is defiled: therefore do I visit the in 
“iquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.” And 
“verse 27th——‘ For all these abominations have the men of the land dene, 
“which were before you, and the land is defiled’ Words to the same efiect 
“follow these prohibitions in the 23d verse of the 20th chapter. ‘And ve 
‘shall not walk in the manver of the nations which I cast out before you.” 


* Report of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. 
+ Trumbull, © ' $Edwards. § Livingston. 


‘ 30 

“By all these incestuous marriages, the Canaanites were defiled; and for 
“these abominations, the very land in which they dwelt, was sick of them; ~ 
‘and God abbored them, and cast them out. But they were never under 
“the ceremonial Jaw, nor any other law peculiar to the nation of israel. 
“They knew nothing of the law of Moses, or the Jewish poli 
“these marriages, here prohibited, were violations of the moral | 
“the light of nature; or such instructions as God had given thet 
“ous to the writing of the law of Moses. The prohibitions were written 
“in the law of Moses, to guard his own people from those very sins, for 

“which he destroyed the nations which were before them, to whom the 
“laws of Moses were never published, It 1s impossible, therefore, to con- 
“ceive, how they should be defiled, and why God should abbor them, on 
‘any other account, than for their sins against the light of nature, or the 
“moral law. Nothing, therefore, can be more certain, than that the prohi- 
“ bitions are of a moral nature, and binding upon all mankind. They were 
“binding, before the law of Moses was written, and still binding ; and will 
“be so fur ever.. It is pleaded by some, that these prohibitions were ce- 
“remonial, because they say, the 19th verse of the 18th chapter was cere- 
“monial, and belonged to the Jewish polity only. But it is by no means 
“ granted, that this was ceremonial. The contrary is abundantly evident, 
‘‘as it is a sin, like others, charged against the Pagan inhabitants of Ca- 
“naan, who never had been acquainted with the law of Moses; and is 
‘declared by God himself to be among those very abominations, for which 
‘“he cast them out of their land. The prohibition was made, to prevent 
‘‘God’s own people, from committing those very sins, against the light of 
“ nature, by which the Heathen made themselves abominable, and for which 
“they were destroyed ; and that the land might not vomit them out, as it 
‘shad done its former inhabitants. Besides, the prophet Ezekiel men- 
‘¢tions it among other great abominations, and gives it as part of the 
‘*character of a righteous man, that he keep himself from it.” See 
Ezekiel xviii. 5—9. 

** With respect to the objection, that the laws of Moses no more con- 
‘¢ cern us, than the laws of Solon or Lycurgus, and that, therefore, noth- 
‘ing can be pleaded. from Leviticus xvii. and xx. against marrying a 
*¢ wife’s sister, more than from the laws of those Pagans, «it may be ob- 
<* served, that this is rather the objection of the Infidel, than of a Chris- 
‘¢tian. Will any Christain maintain, that we have nothing to do with the. 
‘fen commandments, with the laws against idolatry, beastiality, sodomy, 
‘¢nor any kind of incest? Have we nothing to do with the laws agamst 
‘* man-stealing, murder, and those which relate to the Sabbath? Will any 
‘¢ Christian maintain this? Certainly, he will not. But, where are their 
‘<laws relative to these, but in the books of Moses? Are not these laws 
‘¢vouched by the prophets, and by Christ and his Apostles, as the laws 
‘sof God? The laws respecting incest are moral laws. They prohibit 
‘¢ sins, of which the Heathen were guilty, who were never under, the law 
‘¢ of Moses. They are, therefore, no less to be regarded by us than the 
*¢ other laws of God.” 

«“ Again: With respect to what is pleaded relative to convenience,—that 
‘no person is so suitable to come into the place of a deceased wife, as her 
6 sister :—that none are so likely to be kind and faithful to her motherless 
“children, it may be answered, that this is only an appeal to corruption, 
‘*to human feelings, and opinions,—against the law, the wisdom, and 


“goodness of God. He knows, with infallible certainty, what is most 
suitable, in all cases, and what will always promote personal, domestic, 
‘sand public happiness :—nothing, therefore, is to be pleaded, against his 
«+ will. Were this a valid plea, it might be pleaded, with equal force, for 
“a brother’s marrying his own sister, and for a daughter’s marrying her 
« own father: for, who would be so kind toa man and his children, as his 
¢¢ own sister ? Who would be so kind to a daughter, and her fatherless chil- 
«¢ dren, as her own father ? And who, in the world, would be so kind a wile, 
¢¢as a man’s own daughter !—But, how invalid, and absurd, are all such 
** pleadings. Objectiens like these never onght to be mentioned in oppo- 
* sition to the Divine law.”* “ Besides; it is by no means a conceded 
** point, that the sister of a deceased woman, married to ber husband, is 
‘¢* more likely than another person, to be kind to her children. It is said, 
“that orphans have been more frequently murdered by uncles and aunts, 
*¢ than by any other persons.” 

‘* It is pleaded, that the case of marrying a wife’s sister, is very different 
‘* from that of marrying a brother’s widow;—that there are very few, if 
**any instances, in which a man marries, or wishes to marry his brother’s 
‘*widow. But the instances of men who marry, or wish to marry their 
‘* wives’ sisters, are very numerous; which’ shews, that the feelings of hu- 
¢* man nature are very ‘different, in the different cases; that the minds of 
‘s men, in genera}, revolt from the idea of marrying a brother s widow, but 
¢* not at all from the idea of marrying a wife's sister, and that, therefore, 
*¢we cannot justly argue, from the one of these cases to the other. To 
**this, it may be answered, that it is no proper matter of wonder, that 
“men do not so frequently marry their brothers’ widows, as their wives’ 
‘* sisters: for they do not so generally choose to marry any widows, as 
«they do maidens. It may be presumed, that as many instances aay be 
« produced, in which men have wished to marry their brothers’ widows, as 
«can be produced, in which they bave wished to marry their wives’s sis- 
“ters, who are widows, If women were at liberty to make overtures to- 
« wards marriage, we might expect as many instances of such overtures 
s* made to husbands’ brothers, as are now made to wives’ sisters: which 
ss would shew, that human nature no more revolts from the idea of marry- 
*¢ ing a brother’s widow, than from that of marrying a wife’s sister.”’7 

* Another consideration, which, it is conceived, ought to have some 
‘¢ weight, in this case, is, the greatness of the sin of incest, taken in con- 
** nection with ** the improbability that men ever will come to repentance, 
‘* confess and forsake it When a inan becomes guilty of it, in marriage, 
** the embarrassed and distressed condition he must be in, if he should be 
* convinced of his error,—that he had been guilty of, and lived in ineest;— 
*¢ love to his wife, and to his children;——his unwillingness to expose them to 
‘* shame, and utterly to renounce and put them away,—weould all be so ma- 
“ny bribes, to blind his eyes, and to prevent all conviction of his sin, let 
« the means of it be ever so great. The very apprehension of such terri- 
‘* ble consequences, would engage him to use every argument and excuse 
s possible, in his own vihdi@alicn - and would give force to them, in his 
¢* own mind, though they wight be very inconclusive, and of little conside- 
“ration. Besides;—when men commit great sins; and persist in them, 
‘¢for along time, it hardens the heart; and blinds it more and more; and 


* Trumbull. + Edwards. 


‘s | , nz 


32 


’ * God gives them up, as a judgment for their sins, tofifal blindness and 
‘*impenitency. There ts, therefore, little probability, th ‘persons guilty 
‘*of the incest of which | have been treating, will ever be brought to a 
“conviction of their sin. Should ihey be brought into great doubts and 
« fears, with respect to its lawfulness or be rationally convinced of the unlaw- 
«+ fulness of their connection, their habit in sin, and their strong affection to 
‘+a wife and children, would have a powerful tendency to prevent them from 
«* confessing and forsaking it. Onsupposition any person should be really 
«+ convinced of his sin, in such a ease, and become a true penitent; in what 
“an uvhappy condition must he be, on temporal accounts.” He must not 
‘* only confess, but forsake his sin ;--and must renounce conjugal duties, -— 
‘¢to the woman he most dearly loved. How painful, to look back on his 
“life, as a life of incest ; and on his children,—as the fruit of an abomi- 
“ nable, incestuous connection! Who could be willing,-—who could, consis- 
‘¢ tent with reason and prudence, put himself into a condition, in which he 
** would be exposed, to such evil, distress and danger Ty : ; 

“But I must return, sir, to the appeal; [in the further consideration of 

‘¢ which, we shall, perhaps, by and bye, find a practical illustration of the 
‘¢ weight due to this last mentioned consideration.] The appellants 3d, 
‘¢ 4th and 5th reasons for appealing, are, I think, pretty nearly allied; and 
‘¢ may be disposed of together. 
_ His 3d reason is, that **the Session of Ottery’s church, in making up 
«their judgment, in his case, did not rest contented, with considering and 
<¢ pronouncing the act which they so severely condemned, as merely a rash 
s¢and inconsiderate act of indiscretion; or as a step unadvisedly and inju- 
« diciously taken :—all which,” it seems, “ he freely admits; and for which 
‘¢he would, without appeal, have willingly submitted, to. their censure, ad- 
+¢ monition, rebuke, or suspension ;—but, that they have proceeded so far, 
as to adjudge him to be guilty of the crime of Incest; and to determine it 
“to be essential, to his repentance for this crime, that he separate himself 
“from the woman, whom he has chosen, as his wife.” [Who, that is free 
from prejudice, does not, here, at once, perceive, the dangerously decep- 
tive nature of that sin, to which the appellant has yielded ? Conscience 
seems to tell him, that he has, in some degree, transgressed ; and even in- 
clines him to submit to such punishment, as might, in his mistaken and de- 
luded apprehension, be due to sins, not very highly aggravated, in their 
nature ;-—but he cannot, fora moment, indulge the thought of forsaking 
this sin ;-—its deceitfulness, blinds him, so that he cannot perceive its hein- 
ous nature; and persuades him that it is venial ;—nor can he, by any effort 
of his mind, be brought to the conviction, that it amounts to Incest. The 
more he reflects on thissubject, the deeper, it appears to me, is his infatuation. 
This, I think, will appear more and more, in the progress of his appeal. } 

_ His 4th reason is, that, “ after all the light he has been able to obtain on 
** this subject, he cannot but think, that a separation from her whom he now 
“* considers and believes to be his wife,—-so far {rom atoning for any indiscre- 
‘¢ tion of which he has been guilty, in marrying her, would, itself, bea crime, 
*¢ more offensive to God, than the act of their coming together.” [Itis, 

indeed, not strange, that, plunged as he is inguilt, he should thus think, and 
thus plead. It is the very nature of the crime into which he has fallen, 

thus to delude its unhappy victim. } ( 


* Trumbull. 


3B 


_ His 5th reason is, that “ the assertion of the said Session, that his marriage 
. “‘ with the said Mary can never be made lawful by any law of man, or consent 
“of parties,so asthey may live together as man and wife, although it is sanc- 
*‘tioned by the language of the Confession of Faith, is yet, in his opinion, to- 
“tally unsupported by the Holy Scriptures.” [(O, how essential a qualifica- 
tion for the successful searching of the oracles of God, is a mind, deeply im- 
pressed with a sense of the malignant nature of sin,—sincerely disposed to 
forsake it ; and unreservedly willing, as well as anxiously desirous, to receive, 
embrace, and yield to the influence of truth, at whatever sacrifice!] 

On each of these three reasons for appealing, I wish, [in addition to the 
passing observations already made] to submit a few brief remarks. 

Had the Session acted, sir, without any reference to duty, or responsibility ; 
had they forgotten, in whose service they were engaged, and the natire of 
the trust committed to them ;—had they lost sight of the high charaeter they 
were called to sustain, as Judges of a Court of Jesus Christ ;—it is possible, 
they might have been disposed to gratify his wishes. In this case, they might 
even have suifered his offence to have passed unobseryed:—but, sir, when they 
considered, whose service it was they were engaged in; and recollected, that 
a period must arrive, when they must render an account of all their proceed- 
ings, to that God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity ; they must 
have been aware, that they had some higher end to consult, than the wishes 
of any man. It, therefore, became them, sir, to be careful,—that, in the impor- 
‘tant matter before them, the judgment they should form, should be “ according 
* totruth ;’ and such a one as might safely be submitted, to that supreme Judge 

of all, who, most assuredly, will “bring fo light the hidden things of darkness, 
** and make manifest the counsels of the heart.” Under this conviction, sir, they 
durst not consider, or treat, the offence into which they were inquiring, ‘* mere- 
‘ly as a rash and inconsiderate act of indiscretion; or as a step, unadvisedly 
“and injudiciously taken: they conscientiously believed it to be an offence 
of a much deeper, and much more highly aggravated nature: they believed 
it to be rscest ;—an offence, which, the Lord, in his Holy Word, calls “ wick- 
edness,” and “‘ abomination,” and, on account of which God drove, and the 
land vomited out, those who were guilty of it. Of this aggravated crime, sir, I 
think I have proved the appellant to be guilty: and, if the proof I have offered 
be sufficient, in the judgment of this Assembly, I apprehend, the session will 
not be charged with the exercise of excessive severity ;—as if they took plea- 
sure in making the offence of their brother appear-greater than it really was. 
That man, sir, who, after having grievously sinned against God, can gravely 
eall the act which he has thus committed, “a mere act of rash and inconsid- 
“ erate indiscretion, or a step unadvisedly and injudiciously taken;” and then 
plead, that to persevere in the commission of this very sin, must’be more ac- 
ceptable to God than to forsake it,—or, which is even worse,—that, to for- 
sake it, must be more offensive to God, than to persevere in it;—the man, sir, 
who can deliberately act thus, and profess this course to be the result of a se- 
rious inquiry into the mind and wil] of God,—is, indeed, to pitied, for his in- 
fatuation ;—but, in a Judicatory of Christ’s church, I should think it an impi- 
ous prostitution of God’s ordinances, to extend, to such a man, the privileges 
of God’s house. This remark, however, must be understood, as founded on 
the supposition, that I have already proved the appellant to be guilty of Incest; 
and, if the evidence I have offered, be considered, by the Assembly, as amount- 
ing to such proof, it must follow, that the appellant’s marriage with his de- 
ceased wife’s sister, “can never be made lawful, by any law of man, or con- 
“sent of parties, so as they may live together, as man and wife;” and that 
the Session, when they asserted this, did assert that, which was not only sanc- 
tioned by the language of the Confession of Faith, but also fully supported, by 
the unerring testimony of the Holy Scriptures. 

Tt may, sir,on a superficial view of this subject, appear hard,—that a per- 
son, in the appellant’s situation, should, previous. to his restoration to sealing 
erdinances, be requircd to separate from the woman whom ke has chosen, a& 


t 


34 


a wife; but, it ought to be recollected, that the hardship igo 
choosing: “The church is not,” and cannot be” acccountable, 

ships, in whieh a “ transgressor of d® Divinely revealed “law, may h 
“ved himself. She may, and she does pity and pray for him;—but, hay 
‘legislative, but only a declarative and executive authority, in God's hous 
‘she cannot, from sympathy, undertake, like Popes, profanely to dispens 
“with, or alter the divine constitution, or laws in the Bible. By reading the las 
“chapter of the book of Ezra, we shall find, that 113 persons brought them- 
“selves, their wives and children, into great difficulties, by profane, that is, 


“forbidden marriages. Nothing but the dissolution of those connexions could — 


“‘appease the wrath of God towards the culprits, and the society or commu- 
“‘nity to which they belonged. Although these things took place” more than 
two thousand “ year’s ago, our sympathy is, even yet, strongly excited, when, 
‘by faith in the sacred word, we see upwards of a hundred men, Mas Jo 
“‘ way their wives,—women they probably loved, and children too, even where 
“ there was no incest in the case, as in'the case in question :” yet, sir, “human 
‘‘sympathy and commiseration, cannot, must not mullify the eperation of the 
“statutes of the Lord. ‘Sinners must ‘ bear their own iniquity.’ Their hard- 
«ships, both in this life and in the next, are brought on them, by their own 
‘“yashness; and with their eyes open. Whose commiseration,” sir, “ is not 
*‘ excited, by the sight of the execution of a felon, dying according to the 
‘Jaws of God and man? But yet, the law must be respected and fulfilled, for 
‘** the general good of society, and in honor of the divine authority.”* ~ 

I come now, sir, to the appellant’s /ast reason for appealing ;—a reason on 
which he appears to place great reliance : and by urging which, he seems to 
hope, that he will ultimately triumph. Here he tells you, sir, that he appeals, 
to this. Reverend Body,—* Because the decision of said Session is at variance 
‘with the opinions expressed, at different times, by the General Assembly of 
“the Presbyterian church, to which he now appeals.’ He then makes such 
quotations from these opinions, as appear to him to suit his purpose; and con- 
cludes with expressions of strong confidence, that this Assembly will not con- 
firm the decision from which he appeals. Sir, I ingenuously confess to you, 
and to my Reverend Fathers and Brethren of this Genera] Assembly, that, in 
meeting this part of the appeal, I feel myself, in no small degree, embarrass- 
ed, by a sense of the peculiar delicacy and difficulty of the task, which I have 
undertaken. This embarrassment, however, does fot arise from any want 
of confidence in the justice, or the truth, of that cause, of which I now ap- 
pear as the advocote; buat, it proceeds from a trembling fear, lest, m pleadin, 
the cause of truth, I should manage its defence so injudicious)y, as to sree 
the sensibility of such of my Reverend Fathers and Brethren, as entertain, on 
this important subject, sentiments which do not entirely accord with my own. 
But, Why should [ indulge such a fear? Surely, in an Assembly of men who 
love truth, 1 have a right to calculate on the exercise of that candor, which 
will iacline all who possess it, to bear with whatever may proceed from an 
honest zeal for truth ; although this should not, at all times, be in perfect har- 
mony with their own views of the same subject. The fact, then, sir, on which 
the appellant so much relies, is readily conceded. It is granted, sir, because,— 
Alas! it cannot with truth be controverted,—that the decision from which 
the present appeal is taken, is, indeed, ‘‘ at variance with the opinions ex 
“ed, at different times, by the Genera! Assembly of the Presbyterian church.” 
Sir,—for the honor of the Presbyterian church,—were it of any use, I could 
most heartily \vish, that this were a proposition which the appellant could pot 
establish :- bit, unhappily, the arcuives of this General Assembly, do bear 
testimoiiy om his subject, which.caunot be resisted. Well; Moderator :—Be 
it sc:—=i must take it asJ find it ‘tis, however, no small alleviation of that 
regret, We ch I feel in consequen-e of this fact,-that it is with opinions, and 


» 


STA i 5 3 z4 ‘ 5 SE a : 
not with decisions of the Genera) Assembly, that the decision of the Session of 


— 


* Report of the Synod of Sow!) Carolina and Georgia. 


35 


Ottery's church, is found to be at variance. Happily, sir, for that Session, 
and its cause,—however strange it may appear,—the fact is plain and palpa- 
ble, that,—often as this subject has elicited the opinion, it has never yet, in 
one single solitary instance, called forth a decision of the General Assembly of 
the Presbyterian church. It has long been to me, sir, I will freely own, a 
matter of deep concern, that such opinions as those quoted by the appellant, 
have ever found a place on the General Assembly’s records; and 1 am not 
without hopes, that this General Assembly, in taking a view of the present 
case, will perceive, that these very opinions, have had an unhappy influence, 
in contributing to the increase of evils, which we all deplore. As that charity 
which “beareth, believeth, hopeth, and endureth all things,” will not suffer 
~ me to put an unfavorable construction on the acts of any of my Fathers and 
Brethren, I feel no disposition whatever, to ascribe to any of those Assemblies, 
whose opinions the appellant has quoted,,any other motive, in forming and ex- 
pressing these opinions, than a sincere desire to promote the glory of God, and 
the good of his church on earth; but, as it is equally characteristic of the 
same charity, thatit “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth,” I 
hope I shall not be considered as giving evidence of deficiency in that chris- 
tian grace, if I freely express what I think, in relation,—not to the authors of 
these opinions. but, tothe opinions themselves. Let us, then, Moderator, for a 
few moments, attend to these opinions, as they appear on your records; and 
endeavor, if possible, to ascertain, what weight they ought to have, with this 
Assembly, in disposing of the present appeal. The Assembly of 1797, in the 
case of a man who had married his former wife’s half-brother’s daughter, and 
afterwards, the Assembly of 1802, in the case of a man who had married his 
former wife's sister's daughter, expressed themselves thus: “ Resolved, that, 
“although the Assembly would wish to Giscountenance imprudent marriages, 
“or such as tend, in any way, to give uneasiness to serious persons, yet, it is 
‘‘ their opinion, that the marriage referred to, is not of such a nature as to ren- 
“der it necessary to exclude the parties from the privileges of the church.” 
In a similar case;—i. e. in the case of a man who had married his former 
wife’s sister’s daughter, the Assembly of 1804 expressed themselves, thus :—— 
«The Assembly, having given repeated decisions ;°—I quote, Moderator, lit- 
erally from the records ; but, this must be a mistake;—it ought to be, opinions, 
“in sunilar cases, cannot advise to annul such marriages, or pronounce them 
“in such a degree unlawful, asthat the parties, if otherwise worthy, should be 
‘< debarred from the privileges of the church ;—but,—as great diversity of o- 
‘pinion appears to exist on such guestions, in different parts of the church; so 
“that no absolute rule can be enjoined with respect to them, that shall be uni- 
“versally binding, and consistent with the peace of the church; and, as the 
“cases in question are supposed te be doubtful, the Assembly is constrained to 
“leave it to the discretion of the inferior judicatories, under their care, to act, 
“ according to their own best lights, and the circumstances in which they find 
“themselves placed.” The remaining opinion, to which the appellant now 
before you refers, is that which was given by the Assembly of 1821, in the 
case of a Mr. William Vance, who, like the present appellant, had married 
the sister of his deceased wife. In this case, the Assembly expressed their 
opinion as follows; viz: ‘* Resolved, 

*«]. That, in the opinion of this General Assembly, the marriage of a man 
“to thesister of his deceased wife, and all similar connexions, are highly inex- 
“pedient, unfriendly to domestic purity, and exceedingly offensive to a large . 
“portion of our churches. 

“2. That it be, and it hereby is, earnestly enjoined upon the Ministers, E}- 
‘ders, and Churches of our communion, to take every proper occasion to im- 
“press the sentiments contained in the foregoing resolution, on the public 
* mind; and, by all suitable means. to discourage connexions, so unfavorable 
*in their influence, on the peace and edification of the church. 
' “3. That while the Assembly adopt the opinion, and would enforce the 
“injunction aboye expressed, they are by no means prepared to decide, that 


36 


such marriages as titat in question, are so plainly prohibited Scripture, 


<= 


~ * and so undoubtedly incestuous, as necessarily to infer the exe] of those 
“‘ who contract them, from church privileges. They, therefore, refer the case 
“of Mr. Vance back again to the Session of the church of Cross-ereek, a- 
“« sreeably to former decisions.”——Here, again, Moderator, is another mistake : 
it ought to be,—former opinions ‘‘ of the General Aesembly in similar eases, 
“to be disposed of, in such manner, as the said Session may think, most con- 
“ ducive to the interests of religion.” ee 
I presume, Moderator, it will be unanimously admitted, by this Assembly,— 
that nothing contained in any of the acts of former Assemblies, now recited, 
can properly be said to amount to a decision of the question now before you ; 
and that they are merely acts, expressive of the opinions of those Assemblies 
by which they were adopted. Here, perhaps, it may be proper to inquire, 
why these Assemblies, instead of deciding a question of so much magnitude, 
contented themselves with barely expressing their opinions, on this great ques- 
tion? For pursuing this course, sir, they might, for aught we know, have had 
many weighty reasons, which their views of expediency might, possibly, have 
forbidden them to express. From an inspection of the records, however, in 
connection with some known facts, one reason may be gathered; and J am in- 
clined to think, it is the only one, which, at present, it is important for us to 
ascertain. In each of the cases referred to, the subject was presented to them, 
in a shape, which did not appear to them absolutely to require a decision ; and 
they seem to have apprehended, that, while, on the one hand, the expression 
of an opinion, might have answered the purposes required; yet, on the other, 
an absolute decision, on which side soever it might be given, might have been 
productive of very unpleasant consequences. ‘This, sir, I infer, from the fol- 
lowing facts, relating to the cases already recited. In the year 1797 the sub- 
ject came up, in the form of a reference from the Synod of Virginia ;—in 1802, 
it came, in the form of a request, for the direction of the Assembly, in a case 
of discipline, from the Session of the church of Westminster, in Jefferson 
county, State of Tennessee; and, in 1804;—1in the form of a reference from 
the Synod of Pittsburg. These facts, sir, are, all, matters of record. In 
1821, the subject did, indeed, come up, in the form of an appeal; but, it was 
ascertained, on inquiry, that the appellant had never partaken of the Lord’s 
Supper; and that his case had originated in an application to the minister of 
Cross-creek church, for the baptism of his child ; which privilege, the session 
of that church, refused to grant him. I think it proper to remark, sir, that I 
state this fact,—not on the authority of your records; but from-a personal re- 
eollection of what oecurred, in the Assembly of 1822, when the Session of 
Cross-creek church petitioned the Assembly to take upon themselves the re- 
sponsibility of the case, by an absolute decision; which the Assembly refused 
todo. Now, although these reasons for substituting an opinion for a decision, 
in each of the cases here referred to, are, in my humble judgment, far from 
being sufficient; (for I think it the duty of superior judicatories to strengthen 
the hands of the inferior; and our discipline declares all baptized persons, as 
members of the church, and proper subjects of discipline ;) yet as they appear 
to have satisfied the minds of these Assemblies, so far as to have influenced 
their acts; my present object, in referring to the circumstances just stated, is, 
to shew, that,—even were I to grant the sufficiency of the reasons which ap- 
pear to have influenced the Assemblies of 1797, 1802, 1804 and 1821, in all 
these specified cases, they are reasons which cannot, with the least shadow of 
propriety, be adduced, in favor of subjecting the case now under consideration, 
to asimilar result. The present appeal, sir, brings the subject before you, in 
a shape very different from any in which it has heretofore appeared; and ex- 
hibits the question to be determined, under circumstances, which, in my hum- 
ble opinion, loudly calls for an absolute decision. Here, sir, you are presen- 
ted,—not with an application from a church Session, for advice, in a case of 


discipline ;—not with a reference, from a church Session, Presbytery, or Sy- - 


hod ;—nor yet, with an appeal, on the part of a person, whose claims to atter- 


37 


fion, on the score of his past standing, can, at all, be considered as doubtful: 


but, you have, before you, sir, an appeal, regularly and constitutionally brought _ 


up; and the appellant is a man, who, not only has heretofore enjoyed the seal- 
ing ordinances of God’s house,—but has also exercised a very important office 
in the church of Christ; namely, the office of a Ruling Elder. You find, too, 
sir, from the language employed, in his appeal, that he possesses no small in- 
genuity, in defending the course which he has pursued; and if, by sustaining 
his appeal, you suffer this ingenuity to be further displayed, in our church, so 
far as it may operate in inducing others to follow his example; and if you thus 
pave the way for giving such an example a still more specious appearance; by 
repeatedly admitting, in the prosecution of future appeals, the exercise of such 
powerful talents as have been employed in his defence, before this Assembly, 
by our brother, who has appeared here as his advocate ;-—it is hard to say, to 
what extent, an evil, already by far too prevalent, may be permitted to spread, 
inourchurch. I trust, sir, that these statements and remarks, will satisfy this 
General Assembly, that the period is now at hand, when a regard for the best 
interests of Zion imperiously demands, that the important question now before 
you, should be disposed of, in firmer and more decisive terms, than those which 
appear in the acts of former Assemblies. But, sir, the question stil! returns,-— 
What weight is due to these sentiments of former Assemblies, in dispo- 
sing of the present appeal?—-To the opinions of a General Assembly, sir, 
which is the highest judicial tribunal in our church, it is certain, that very 
great deference is due:—yet, while this is cheerfully conceded, it must also 
be allowed, that, to the binding authority of such opinions, there are certain 
prescribed limits, beyond which, it were sinful to yield to them. These pre- 
scribed limits, sir, are found, in the constitution of our church, and in the word 
of God. Any act of the General Assembly, which contradicts, either the one 
or the other of these, is, of course, null and void. Sir,—I would not willingly 
speak in offensive terms, of those acts of former General Assemblies, to which 
T now refer; yet, the remarks I am about to make, are extorted from me, by 
a sense of duty, and a regard to truth. From every view, then, which I can 
take of these opinions,—so far as they go to deny the marriages in question to 
be incestuous, [ am constrained to consider them,—contrary to the doctrine 
contained in our adopted standards ;—contrary to what we find taught in the 
word of God;—unfriendly to the purity of the church ;—subversive of discip- 
line; and unhappily calculated to encourage a species of alliances, highly 
offensive to Jehovah. 'That they are contrary to the doctrine contained in our 
adopted standards, is a position which presents itself to my mind, with evi- 
dence so clear, that I cannot but think, every member of this Assembly, will 
grant it, without hesitation. That they are contrary to what we find taught 
in the word of God, will be admitted, if the evidence I have already adduced 
from scripture, to prove the incestuous nature of that connexion into which 
the appellant has entered, be deemed, by this Assembly, sufficient for that pur- 
pose; and, if it be not, then, I confess, no other evidence 1 can produce, can 
afford me the hope of satisfying the Assembly, on this point. I consider these 
Opi:ions, sir, unfriendly to the purity of the church; because I regard the 
crime of Incest, as the offspring of impurity, I consider them unhappily caleu- 
lated to encourage, a species of alliances, highly offensive to Jehovah; because, 
such is the view I am constrained to take of them, when I examine the testi- 
mony of the Holy Scriptures, concerning incestuous marriages: and, I consi- 
der them, sir, as subversive of discipline; because, it does appear to me, that 
their natural and direct tendency is, to enfeeble and pull down the hands of the 
inferior judicatories, instead of strengthening and holding them up, when they 
attempt to exercise or enforce discipline on this subject. 

Of this last position, sir, I think, this General Assembly are furnished with a very for- 
cible illustration, in the appeal now before them. The Assembly of 1797, have told us, 
—and the Assembly of 1802, have repeated the assurance, that they “would wish to 
“* discountenance imprudent marriages, or such as tend, in any way, to give uneasiness te 
“serious persons.” And where, Moderator, do we find imprudent marriages discounte- 


' 


% 


nanced? Are they discountenanced. in the resolution, in which we f 
pressed ? Are hot the marriages there referred to, confessedly “impr 

not, to say the very least of them, tend.to give much * wneasiness to sei 
this be their character,—(and seareely will any one cme to deny 


LU Us | 1b $07 

r the th 
surely we might expect to find, in these resolutions, some strong expressi i 
sembly’s disapprobation. And how, sir, is this disapp' vation expressed ? Truly M 
erator, it is almost enough to excite a smile of pleasantry, to fing, as'a substitute for su 
expression of disapprobation, the following language :—“ yet, it is theiropinion, that the 
“marriage referred to, is not of such a nature as to render it necessary to exclude the par- 
* ties from the privileges of the church.” s this, sir, the way to discountenance such mar- 


: Teck! 


riages? To me, sir, it really appears to be the direct way to countenance and encourage 
them. If this opinion be binding on the inferior judicatories, 1 would ask,—how is dis- 
cipline ever to be exercised, in a case of thisnature? Or how can they fulfil the wish ex- 

pressed in this resolution—to discountenance marriages, which all agree to be alike im- 

prudent and offensive? Perhaps it may be said, that the Assembly of 1804 have shore 

the inferior judicatories from the dilemma, in which the binding authority of this opin- 

ion has placed them, in the declaration, that the Assembly are constrained “to leave il to 

* the discretion of the inferior judicatories, under their care, fo act according to their own. 

“best lights, and the circumstances, in which they find themselves ploced.” Here, sir, it 

is true, there is left, to the inferior judicatories, a discretionary power, on this subject : 

buat,—to what purpose is this discretionary power? Does not the very first clause, in the 

very act which gives this diseretionary power, render such power entirely nugatory, by 

declaring, that the Assembly “ cannot adyise to annul such marriages, or pronounce them 

“‘insuch a degree unlawful, as that the parties, if otherwise worthy, should be debarred 

“* from the privileges of the church?” If this be understood as a direction, not to debar 

the parties, in such cases, from the privileges of the chnrch, (and if it be not thus under- 

stoed,it has no meaning) how can the matter with propriety, be said to be “Jeft to the 

“discretion of the inferior judicatories?”’ Suppose it chould be the Weeiie pe aa 

rior judicatory, to debar such parties, would not the parties be ready to plead, that such 
discretion was contrary to the advice of the General Assembly ?—Yes, sir: you have be- 

fore you, sufficient demonstration of this; for this very plea is actually made, by the ap- 

peliant in the present case. It was idle, then, sir, to talk of a discretionary power, thus 

fettered, andthus clogged. Jn the same act, sir, we are further told, that in consequence of 
the great diversity of opinion which appears to exist,’ on such questions, in different parts of 
the church, ‘ no absolute rule can be enjoined with regard to them, that shall be* univer- 

sally binding, and consistent with the peace of the church,” If] understand this expression 

aright, sir, the import of it seems to be, that, ifan “absolute rule,” enjoined by the Gene- 
ral Assembly with regard to such questions, should be made “ universally binding,” stich 
an‘ absolute rule,’ would not, in the opinion of the Assembly who passed this resolution, 
he “ consistent with the peace of the church.” It is. indeed, very true, sir, that all church 
judicatories are bound to maintain, “the peace of the church ;” and to regard it as an ob- 
ject of sacred importance ; but, ifmy judgment be correct, this is to be done, only in sub- 

serviency to the purity of the church. The Apostle James, who wrote, as we all believe, 
by divine inspiration, informs us, that, ‘‘ the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then 
‘peaceable.’ [From this inspired declaration, 1 apprehend, we are warranted to con- 

clude, that, however desirable peace may be, yet, if, in any instance, purity and peace can- 
not be both maintained together, the former is, at all events to be preserved, even at the 
sacrifice of the latter ; and that, if, disregarding this dictate of inspired wisdom, we should 
attempt to preserve peace, at the expense, or sacrifice of purity, the consequence will be, 

that the peace thus temporarily secured, (for temporary only itcan be) will in the end, 
be found,—not tobe atrue and lasting, but a false and fleeting peace. But besides,—-with 

all due deference to the superior judgment of the Assembly, whose act I now consider, I 

must be permitted to say, that, when they affirm, that ‘‘no absolute rule can be enjomed, 

‘« with respect to such questions, that shall be universally binding, and consistent with the 
“peace of the church;” they appear to me, to take for granted, what remains to be proved. 

When members of our church enter into such connexions as those we now consider, the 
question is, Shall they be debarred from the privileges of the church; or shall they be 
permitted to enjoy them? To try this question, in reference to the “peace of the chureh,” 
then, let an “ absolute rule” be enjoined, with respect to it; and let that * absolute rule” 
be, that all who contract such marriages, shall, during the existence of such connexions, 
and until the church receive satisfactory evidence of repentanee, be excluded from seal- 

ing ordinances: let this rule be made ‘universally binding ;” and then, I ask, is it more 
likely, tliat “ the peace of the chucrh,” would thus be disturbed, or broken, than it would 


. : A ‘ 
" 


be, by suffering such persons to enjoy the privileges af the church? To me, it appears, 
that such peace as is most desirable, would certainly be-much more readily secured, by 
the exclusion of sttch persons, than by retaining them in communion. If they are exclu- 
ded, those who take a serious 1 iew of the subject, will approve of the exclusion; and 
none will be offended, but the abet of such alliances; and, if they choose to with- 
draw with those who are thus excluded, let them do so :—our church, in my humble o- 
pinion, will enjoy much more tranquility without them, than with them: Whereas,—if 
we allow cur members to form such connexions, and to enjoy, at the same time, ihe priv- 
ileges of the church,—ifI may judge from what has already happened, I think myself 
safe in saying, that we have no ground whatever, to calculate on the enjoyment of peace : 
for, many serious persons,—many of our most valuable members, will be offended ;—the 
toleration of such offences, will give them constant uneasiness ;—and, while we thus 
grieve the godly, we do, so far, dishonor the religion of that blessed Redeemer, whose 
glory, we are bound, in all we do, to promote; and who, on the subject of offences, has 
expressly enjoined it upon his followers, to take heed, how they offend, even the very. 
weakest of his disciples;—solemnly declaring, that “it were better for”? such an one, 
“that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth 
“of the sea.” Thus, it appears to mie, that ifdue pains be taken to preserve the purity 
of the church, such peace as is really valuable and desirable, will thereby be effectually 
secured. But, the Assembly have further said, that “the cases in question are supposed 
**to be doubtful :”—If so, it is certainly the wisest course, to be on the safe side. Allow 
it to be barely possible, that the marriages in question are lawful ;—yet,-—as many persons 
who are alike godly and intelligent, consider them unlawful ;—as it is admitted, on all 
hands, that other connexions will answer the important ends of marriage, much better, 
and will be much less liable to objection ;—as all persons may innocently avoid the con- 
neXions in question ; and thereby secure to themselves the approbation of the wise and 
good ;—I cannot perceive, what evil can result, from our resolutely setting our faces as 
a flint, against all such marriages ; and excluding from communion, all who contractthem : 
and, when this is done,—if they can find churclies of other denominations, who, on this 
subject, are less scrupulous than we are, to receive them, and allow them to enjoy seal- 
ing ordinances,—I, for my part, am perfectly willing, that sweh churches, should enjoy 
all the benefit to be derived from holding such members ; while they take, at the same 
time, as, in such a case, they must do, the responsibility, of extending to them, those priv- 
ileges, which we cannot give them, with a good conscience. If the question be asked,——Is 
it warrantable, on scriptural principles, to exclude persons from the enjoyment of sealing 
ordinances, for an act, in respect to the offensive nature of which, there is, among the 
confessedly godly, a diversity of opinion ?—J answer, that, in my humble opinion, such 
exclusion is perfectly warrantable. An inspired’ Apostle has enjoined it upon us, to 


“ abstain from all appearance of evil;” and, I think, that, even the most strenuous oppo~ 


sers of the doctrine for which] contend, with regard to the marriages in question, will, 
at onee, admit, that—professing christians, who, with a knowledge of the sentiments en- 
tertained by many of the godly, on this subject, will persist in contracting such marriages, 
as those now under consideration, do, to say the very least of it, violate this Apostolic in- 
junction, These considerations all. unite, in producing on my mind, a deep conviction, 
that, in relation to all such marriages us those referred {o in the Assembly’s minutes, the 
injunction of an “ absolute rule,” excluding, without exception, all who contract them, 
from the privileges of the church, and made “ universally binding,”—is not only a mea- 
sure, every way “consistent with the peace of the church,” but also, highly expedient ; 
on scriptural principles, perfectly warratitable ;—and, moreover, loudly called for, as a 
matter of duty,] The Assembly of 1821, sir, have, indeed, gone further than any pre- 
ceding Assembly, in expressing their disapprobation of “the marriage of a man to the 
“sister of his deceased wife, and all similar-connexions :”—for, aware, how little it avafl- 
ed, to “ wish,” with former Assemblies, ‘+ to discountenance imprudent marriages, or such 
‘tas tend, in any way, to give uneasiness to serious persons,” they have, with great pro- 
priety, pronounced them to be, not only * highly inexpedient,? but, also,—* unfriennly to 
* domestic purity, and exceedingly offensive to a large portion of our churches.” In ad- 
dition tothis, they have “ earnestly enjoined it, upon the Ministers, Elders, and Churches of 
“our communion, to take every proper occasion to impress these sentiments on the pub- 
“tlic mind; and, by all suitable means, to discourage connexions, so unfavorable in their 
“ influence, on the peace and edification of the church.” These sentiments, and these in- 
junctions, sir, so far as they go, have my most cordial approbation ; and, doubtless, they 
will meet with the most cordial approbation of all, who have a due regard for the purity 
of the chureh:—but, alas! sir,—a subsequent resolution, has so enfeebled, and frittered 
awny the force of these sentiments and injunctions, as to render them, completely a dead let- 


st 


é 


ter. How, sir, are Ministers, Elders and’ , 
the sentiments,—that such marriages “highly ine they are “un- 
* friendly to domestic purity ;”—and tha ley are, Xe ; 
portion of our churches?”” How are they to d 
sembly declare to be ‘*so unfavorable in their influe 
“‘church?” Are they to impress these sentiments 0) 
such connexions,—by extending to those bal contract su 
nances of God’s house? To my mind, sir, § ch a cole 
imaginable, to produce these desired ‘effec and yet, sir, 
laid these injunctions on us, have serious old ney that 
sed to decide, that such marriages as that in « 
““ ture, and so undoubtedly incestuous, as necessa ° 
“ contract them, from church privileges.” Sir ee 1 betray via ped Sec ‘Db 
I must own, I am almost ready to weep, when Ithink on the effect, which - such a | U 
tion is calculated to produce ! Moderator, I am fully persuaded, that the view I hay 
ken of the natural tendency of such sentiments, when they come from an Eecle: 
tribunal of the highest standing in our church, i is not a visionary or chimerical view : Tean- 
not doubt, but their direet tendency is,—to enfeeble and pull down the hands of those; 
who, by the exercise of wholesome discipline, would wish to promote the ‘purity of the 
church, The appeal before you, sir, isa practical comment on this remark. See, ae 
how the appellant has availed himself of the advantages, thus unwarily afforded 
He scruples not to tell you, sir, that, “ with these repeated declarations of former 
“eral Assemblies fully in view, it may be naturally supposed, that he does not, that, in- 
“deed, he cannot anticipate a confirmation of the decision from which he no’ peals,— 
“sq diametrically opposed, to the sentiments of the collected wisdom of our chur hurch.? Who, 
sir, can hear an appellant talk, in this style, and not regret, that the sh adow of « @ warrant 
for such ianguage, on such a subject, 1s to be found on the records of e General Assems 
bly?—But, this is not all; sir :—the appellant is not restrained, b the expressions of the 
Assembly’s disapprobation of such marriages, which he finds on ett hy these, 
he is not at all restrained from indulging a confident expectation that they will frown 
upon the proceedings of the Session :—He thinks he can condemn the Assembly,—even 
out of their own mouths :—it is, to him, proof sufficient of the lawfulness of such mar- 
riages, that the Assembly “ have not thought. proper to annul them.” “ This,” it ap- 
pears, is, “to his mind, conclusive evidence,” that the Assembly ‘+ did not consider such 
“‘ marriages, either as a nullity, or.as an abomination in the sight of God.” ‘This, it 
seems, was enough to silence all his seruples; and, ‘ these considerations,” he adds, “ af- 
“ford him no small encour agement, to appeal to this General Assembly, from the deci- 
“sion of Session ;”? and, to finish the climax of confidence in the strength of this, his last 
plea he concludes by observing, that,—if this Assembly should proceed no further in his 
favour, than former Assemblies have proceeded iv favour of similar offenders, he is, nev- 
ertheless, sure, that he “shall have the consolation of reflecting,—that,—should the 
-**said Session continue to enforce their decision, they will do so, unsupported by the advice, 
“or concurrence of te General Assembly.” And will you, si, by sustaining this appeal, 
suffer so impudent, so unblushing, so gross, so daring a transgressor, thus to triumph in 
his impurity? Wallyou, thus, sanction the complete prostration of that wholesome discip- 
line, which Christ hath appointed in his church; and thus, suffer the man who disregards 
this discipline, to eseape with impunity? The high opinion | entertain, sir, of the firm- 
ness, piety, and fidelity of this Assembly, forbids me, for a moment/to indulge such a sup- 
position. But, tf, contrary to all my expectations, this appeal should be ‘sustained, then, 
sir, in vain will the Assembly “ wish to discountenance imprudent marriages, or such as 
“tend, in any way, to give uneasiness to serious persons :’—in vain are we enjoined, to 
impress it on the public mind, that such marriages are “ highly inexpedient, peaeny 
“to domestic purity, and exceedingly offensive to a large portion of our churches :” 
and, in vain are we exhorted, to discountenance or discourage connexions, 80 ‘“unfavora- 
ble in their influence on the peace and edification of the church, ie 
There is, Moderator, a fact stated on the records of the Session of Ottery’ s church, in 
eonnection with the appellant’s marriage, which I think deserving of the notice of this 
Assembly, in disposing of the present appeal. The fact, sir, to which I refer, is, that the 
* marriage in question “took place, not more than five weeks after the death of his first 
wife, Although it may besaid, sir, that this circumstance, in itself considered, cannot 
roperly be called a direct violation of any express law; yet, it must be allows to be, 
in general estimation, an offence against decency; and: therefore, an ‘aggravation of the 
principal offence, for which be was arraigned, before the Session. And here, sir, per- wy 
mit me to neers: that due attention to decency, j in all things 4 is, by no tc) : 


portant part of Christian aut aa r things are just,—whatsoever things are 
** true,—whatsoever things are honest,- - ave ever things ¢ are pure,—whatsoever things 
“are: lovely,—whatsoever things are 


e of good report,-~if there be any virtue, or if there 
“tbe any praise,-—think on these 


b- vial sir, an * inspired Apost 


‘ings.’ With this affecting and sublime group of 
suggests the influence and extent of sanctified prin-_ 
rol f holiness and undeviating rectitu le of Christian 
% manners, which include all that i im plied i in decency and delicacy.”* 

cireumstance to which I have adyerted, sir, the appellant’s marriage ‘witlth is § 

law, is itself, even independently of the testimony of scripture on this subject, an ofience 
against decency. Were we even to admit, sir,— that a doubt might be cherished, whe- 
“ther a sister-in-law bea relation within the pr ohibited degrees, must it not still be ac- 
“ knowledged, that, to marry such a relative, is a rash and dangerous act? Is it not pe- 
* rilous, to advance, as near as possible, to th e brink of a precipice? Is it safe, is it pru- 
* dent, is it consistent with the christian | character, to approach deliberately to the very 
“ verge of an abominable and accursed crime, under the infatuated and fluctuating hope, 
% that, perhaps, it may possibly, be an exemption ?—But, ” sir, “it isnot only rash and 
“‘ dangerous to the individuals :—it is also injurious to the community. In the confidence 
* of protection from a man, who, by his marriage, has been brought into the family, and 
“ become a brother, the younger sisters are always in the habit of associating familiarly 
“and frequently with the married sister. Their former affection is not interrupted by 
* the introduction of a new relative.—This is proper. It is consistent with the most ri- 
“gid rules of morality, It is founded on the indisputable presumption, that the sister 
‘of the wife, isnow also become the sister of the husband, and he is her brother. No 
“suspicion of indecency can arise in her mind, nor any imputation of indelicacy, upon 
‘the part of the public. She may come, remain, or go, in all the safety of innocency, 

*‘under the broad shield of the divine law, and the universal consent and approbation of 
“society. But, let it once be adopted,—let practice establish the detestable principle, 
«that the sister, after the death of the wife, may become no! ai all related to the hus- 
* band ;that she may be, to him, a stranger, and as much the legitimate object of mar- 
“riage as any other woman;—and her frequent and familiar visits must cease. She can 
‘no more come to his house, or be oftener seen in the company of her brother-in-law, than 
“ she may frequent the house, or be familiar in the company of any other married man. 
* The affectionate intercourse of the sisters is at-an end.”’+ 

T am sensible, sir, that I have trespassed too long on the patience of this General As- 
sembly ; but, the very great importance which I attach to the subject before you, must 
_ be my apology. 

And now, Moderator, permit me, in conolusion, to ask, What will this Assembly do 
with the appeal before them? Will they, after the example of former Assemblies, send 
it back to the Session from whence it came, to be disposed of, as that session may think 
duty and expediency requires ?—If so,=—in vain do we boast of the excellency of our 
constitution, which protects the rights and privileges, both of appellants and appellees; 
and, in vain, in cases of this kind, may inferior judicatories look up to the General As- 
sembly, to strengthen’ their hands, in the exercise of discipline. Will they sustain the 
appeal, by reversing the decision of the Session? Of this, sir, I can have no apprehen- 
sion: for, before this Assembly can, with any semblance of justice, reverse the decision 
of the Session. in this case, there are two things, which they must previously do; for 
which, | am well persuaded, they are not prepared.’ They must, first, expunge, sir, the 
doctrine on which that decision, is founded, from the standards of.our church ; and then, 
with a sacrilegious hand, expunge it from the Bible, 


* Livingston. tibid 


= 
* 


A BRIEF CONCLUDING ADDRESS TO THE SEVERAL, oe Agase rsa 


Reverend and Beloved Fathers, Brethren, and Fellow. abo: ‘sin the Gospel : 

ee DW te 
} Tre last General Assembly of our church have committed to jon, a 
question of very great impertance. The 4th section of the 24th chapter of our Confes- 


“ of Faith, contains, in its last clause, this declaration, designed‘as a rule, 
*, what marriages ate prohibited in the Holy Scriptures; viz: *** The E 
ns marry any of his wife’s kindred, nearer in blood than he may of his own ; nor the wos 
“ man, of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood thanof her own.” ‘The y haye, 
in their wisdom, thought proper to direct you, ‘' to take this matter into serious conside-. 
‘ration; and to send up, in writing, to the next General Assembly, an answer to the 
ok question, whether the above quoted clause of owr Confession shall be erased?” 1D 
ly impressed with a sense of the importance of ‘this question, and, aware of the diversi- 
ty of opinion, which, unhappily, exists,in our church, on the subject to which ‘this ques- 
tion relates, | have been imduced to obtrude the preceding pages on your attention, in the 
hope, that, under the blessing of God, you might, by the perusal, be somewhat assisted, 
in coming to a correct decision, on the very interesting question before you. With my 
present views of this s subject, I confess, that | would seriously deprecate the erasure refer- — 
red to, as the introduction, into our church, of a most serious evil: but, have that con- 
fidence in your piety and wisdom, which assures me, that, in this matter, as i, all others, 
the glory of God will be your object ; and his holy and infallible word, your guide; and 
that, by the efficacious influence of his grace and spirit, he will preserve you from error. 
Your knowledge of Ecclesiastical History will, doubtless, furnish you with numerous 
proofs of the many violent dissensions, and other extensive mischiefs, which, in all ages, 
have resulted from the indulgence of a-spirit of innovation; and henee, you will natu- 
rally conelude, that a change, i in the standards of our church, " dhould not even be attemp- 
ted, unless 1t should clearly appear, that a change zs absolutely necessary While, there- 
fore, it is our duty, on the one hand, to be, at all times, open to conviction; we are, on 
the other, under equal obligations, to be cautious, not to be driven about by every wind 
of doctrine; but, to “ hold fast that which we have, that no man take our crown.” It 
has, indeed, long been my own opinion, that the doctrine taught in the clause of onr 
Confession of Faith which now claims your attention, is also the doctrine taught in the 
Oracles of God. Finding some of my Fathers and Brethren whom I sincerely love and 
highly esteemt, € entertaining and expressing a different sentiment, I have taken considera- 
ble pains, in investigating this subject ; and the result has been, that the more I have in= 
vestigated, the stronger has been my impretsion, that, on this subject, the Bible and the 
Confession of Faith, taught the same doctrine. The quotations I have made, in the pre- 
eeding pages, will shew, that, in this opinion, T am far from standing alone. If, however, . 
of the investigation which this subject is now to undergo, the result shall be, that the 
Presbyteries shall be induced to rescind “ the aboye quoted clause of our Confession,” 
I hopé, that the scriptural light producing such result, will be so presented to our church- 
es, that all may be satisfied, that the change thus affected, shall have arisen, not from an 
impatient and restless spirit of innovation ; but, from a rational, well-founded, and serip= 
tural convielion of its absolute necessity. But, let it not be forgotten, that, if the clause 
of our Confession here referred to, be erased, it will be incumbent on the Presbyteries 
to supply a substitute ; for, this, it must be recollected, is the only definite rule for ascer- 
taining prohibited marriages, which the standards of our church contain. y 


That he who has all hearts in his hands, may direct you, in this matter, todo that 
which shall be well pleasing in his sight, is the fervent, prayer of, 
Reverend Fathers and Brethren, 
Yeur affectionate fellow labourer in the Gospel, 


COLIN McIVER. 


Tt y Sena? 
- ee $ ae % 
( pies . 2 t e 
Pe hd 9 ofe ae o 
e a 4 

* 
iv aie 
ry bh 


- CONTENTS. 


Page 
Dedication, x ye ae E 3 4 ¥, e¢ v Q 
Preface - - - - - - - - - - - 3 
Proceedings of the Session of Ottery’schurch — - - : ete Ad 
Extract from the Minutes of the Presbytery of Fayetteville - (ia 3 
Extract from the Minutes of the Synod of North carolina — - - ibid. 
Mr. McCrimmon’s appeal - - - - -. “ =) 14 
Extracts from the Minutes of the General Assembly - - - 17 
Remarks on a minute of the General Assembly - - apo ie 
The rejected report of a committee of the Assembly - - + ibid. 
Further extracts from the Minutes of the General aoe - ibid. 
Speech jn the General Assembly - - : - atin hD 
A brief concluding address to the several Presbyteries - - 42 

oy 
& e 
ee 
ERRATA. 


The following ERRoRs escaped the notice of the author, until it was 
too late to correct them. 


Page 30, line 41—T'or thetr read there. 

Page 32, lines 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21—read all this paragraph, with- 
out quotations. 

Page 34, line 17, For mullify read nullify. 

Page 34, line 38, For advocote read advocate, 


